M/S Lisraj Overseas PVT. LTD. vs. M/S Maa Sheetla Ventures Limited

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s Lisraj Overseas Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated July 24, 2024, passed by a Sole Arbitrator. The Petitioner had sought to reopen its evidence and summon additional witnesses or direct the Respondent, M/s Maa Sheetla Ventures Limited, to produce documents, including those from the GST Department. The Arbitral Tribunal, however, declined this request. The Petitioner argued that no alternate remedy was available under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to challenge such an order, and the Arbitral Tribunal erred in ignoring Section 27 of the Act.

Held

The Court held that while a writ petition against an order passed by an Arbitral Tribunal is maintainable in principle, the scope of interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is extremely circumspect. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in 'Bhaven Construction v. Executive Engineer Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd.' and this Court's decision in 'Easy Trip Planners Ltd vs One97 Communications Ltd.', the Court observed that judicial interference is warranted only in rare and exceptional cases, such as where an order suffers from "bad faith" or where a party is left remediless. The Court found that interlocutory orders dealing with case management, including summoning witnesses or directing document production, fall within the domain and discretion of the Arbitral Tribunal. The remedy against such orders lies against the interim or final award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Therefore, the Court found no basis to entertain the present petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against an interlocutory order passed by an Arbitral Tribunal concerning the conduct of arbitration proceedings, specifically regarding the reopening of evidence and summoning of witnesses/documents? (Question of law) The Petitioner contended that since no alternate remedy was available under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the writ petition should be entertained. They argued that the Arbitral Tribunal erred by ignoring the mandate of Section 27 of the Arbitration Act and failing to appreciate the need for additional witnesses and documents in the Respondent's custody or with third parties like the GST Department. The Respondent did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.