Statutory Remedy U/S 34 Arbitration Act Cannot Be Bypassed By Filing A Writ Petition: Madhya Pradesh HC

The Court held thus when a preliminary objection was raised by the respondent, Saksham Pradhikari Rajasv Ratlam regarding the maintainability of Writ Petition on the ground that the petitioner, Fulkunwar had an alternative statutory remedy of filing an application under Section 34 of the 1996 Act.

The bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Gajendra Singh observed, “The statutory remedies under the Act of 1996, as well as the Act of 1956, cannot be bypassed by the petitioner, especially when after the stage of adjudication under Section 34 of the Act, the parties/ petitioner would have statutory remedy of approaching the High Court in appeal under Section 37 of the Act of 1996.”

Admittedly, in the present case, the Collector being the Arbitrator had decided the application filed by the petitioner under Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, therefore, as per Section 3(G)(6) of the Act, the provisions of the Act of 1996 shall apply to every arbitration under this Act.

The Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Private Ltd vs. Union of India and others (2014) 15 SCC 44, in which the SC observed, "when the statute provides for statutory appeal, the said remedy is to be availed by the litigating parties".

The Court further mentioned Hameed Kunju vs. Nizam (2017) 8 SCC 611, in which as per the Court, the Apex Court held that any petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should be dismissed in limine where there is the statutory provision of appeal.

Accordingly, the Court did not entertain the Writ Petition.

Cause Title: Fulkunwar v. Saksham Pradhikari Rajasv, Ratlam

Appearance:

Appellant: Adv. V. A. Katkani

Respondent: AAG Anand Soni

Click here to read/download Judgment