Power Of Superintendence Of High Courts Covers Conduct Of Parties; Must Be Informed With Equitable Considerations: Telangana HC
The Telangana High Court held that the power of superintendence of a High Court not only pertains to orders passed by Courts and Tribunals within its jurisdiction but also covers the conduct of parties.
The Court said that the High Court steps in where there has been grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse of the fundamental principles of law or justice.
The Court was hearing a Civil Revision Petition arising out of an order passed by the Special Judge for Trial and disposal of Commercial disputes in a Commercial Original Petition filed by the Petitioner Under Section 37 (2)(b) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice M.G. Priyadarsini observed, “The power of superintendence of a High Court not only pertains to orders passed by Courts and Tribunals within its jurisdiction but must also covers the conduct of parties which result in orders which form part of the Civil Revision Petition.”
Advocate J. Prabhakar appeared for the Appellant and Advocate M. Venkatesh appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
The Petitioner is the "Buyer" as defined under the MSMED Act and opposed a Reference made by the respondent (seller) to the Council regarding an alleged payment due. The reference progressed to arbitration under Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act. The Petitioner filed an Interlocutory Application under Section 17(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking to reframe issues and introduce new evidence, but the Council dismissed the application on the ground that Petitioner was given sufficient opportunities earlier to make submissions before the Council. The Petitioner then filed a Commercial Original Petition before the Commercial Court, seeking to set aside the Council's decision.
The Court said that the C.O.P. was maintainable before the Commercial Court regardless of whether the Commercial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order upon entertaining the application. We thus hold that the Commercial Court did not lack inherent jurisdiction to entertain the C.O.P/Appeal.
The Court observed, “The conduct of the petitioner by all means is manipulative and in abuse of the process of the Court. The most striking feature of the conduct is that the petitioner, having repeatedly invoked the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court and having invited the Court for a decision, has now turned around to question the jurisdiction of the Court to pass orders, including the one impugned in the present Civil Revision Petition. If this conduct is not reckless and self-serving, then nothing is.”
The Court mentioned the Supreme Court decision in Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf v. Badam Balakrishna Hotel Pvt. Ltd where a subsequent plea was filed by the party questioning the jurisdiction of the forum after receiving an adverse verdict. The SC observed, “The petitioner certainly cannot manipulate the Court process to perpetuate an illegality to the detriment of the respondent.”
The Court observed, “the order appealed from under section 37(2)(b) pre-supposes the order passed by the arbitral tribunal to be within the contours of section 17(1) of the 1996 Act.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition.
Cause Title: Narayan Educational Institutions v. Paruchuri Janaki
Appearance:
Appellant: Adv. J. Prabhakar and Adv. A. Nagaraj Kumar
Respondent: Adv. A. Venkatesh and Adv. Since Mohan Devidhas