Patna High Court’s Dismissal of Writ Petition Upheld: Supreme Court’s Arbitration Ruling

The Supreme Court of India, in Axon Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. Om Astha Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Others, ruled on a dispute regarding the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution when an alternative appellate remedy exists under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The case stemmed from an interim order passed in a pending civil suit, and the Supreme Court ultimately directed the trial court to expedite the pending arbitration and injunction applications.

Background of the Case

The dispute originated in Title Suit No. 789 of 2013, pending before the Sub-Judge VI, Patna. Defendant No. 1, Axon Construction Pvt. Ltd., challenged an interim order dated 04.01.2014 issued in the suit and approached the Patna High Court through C.W.J.C. No. 10572 of 2015. However, the High Court dismissed the petition on the grounds that the impugned order was appealable under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC and that the petitioner should have pursued an appellate remedy instead of invoking the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 227.

Aggrieved by this decision, Axon Construction Pvt. Ltd. filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court.

Petitioner’s (Axon Construction Pvt. Ltd.) Arguments:

• The petitioner argued that the High Court should have entertained their writ petition under Article 227 despite the existence of an appellate remedy.
• The petitioner sought intervention from the Supreme Court to examine whether the High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition was justified.
• Alternatively, the petitioner requested the Supreme Court to direct the trial court to expeditiously decide the pending application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act and the injunction application.

Respondent’s (Om Astha Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Others) Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the High Court correctly dismissed the writ petition as an appealable remedy was available under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC.
• They contended that Axon Construction Pvt. Ltd. had chosen the wrong legal route and should have filed an appeal instead.
• The respondents supported the view that the trial court should decide the pending applications as per the due process of law.

Supreme Court’s Judgment:

• The Supreme Court declined to rule on whether the High Court was correct in dismissing the writ petition under Article 227.
• Instead, the Court accepted the petitioner’s alternative prayer and directed the Sub-Judge VI, Patna, to expeditiously decide the pending Section 8 Arbitration Act application and the injunction application within six weeks.
• The Court stated, “The petitioner would be satisfied if this Court directs the trial Court (Sub-Judge VI, Patna) who is seized of the application made by the petitioner under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act in the aforementioned suit and is also seized of the injunction application to ensure their expeditious disposal on merits in accordance with law.”
• The Court emphasized that the trial court should decide these applications uninfluenced by any observations made in the present ruling.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court reinforced the principle that when an appellate remedy exists under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC, a writ petition under Article 227 may not be maintainable.
• The ruling highlights the importance of expeditious resolution of arbitration-related disputes at the trial court level.
• The Court’s order ensured that the pending arbitration application and injunction request would be decided promptly, providing relief to all parties involved.

The judgment was delivered by Justice J. Chelameswar and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre on February 29, 2016.

This ruling underscores the importance of exhausting alternative remedies before seeking writ jurisdiction and promotes timely adjudication of arbitration-related matters in trial courts.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Axon Construction Pv vs Om Astha Constructio Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 29-02-2016-1741852881733.pdf