Delhi High Court: For Enforcement Of Arbitral Award, Appropriate Proceedings Means Remedies Under Arbitration Regime; Not Writ Petition U/A 226 Constitution

The Court dismissed the Writ Petition as not maintainable, stating that it is prudent for the High Court not to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution when a remedy lies in a statutory regime. The Petitioner had challenged the rejection of his claim seeking refund.

A Single Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh held, “The expression ‘appropriate proceedings’, in my view, would mean proceedings under the arbitration regime and cannot mean or connote a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, an interpretation the Petitioner seeks to place on the said expression. Likewise, the order passed by this Court in the case of the Petitioner on 04.08.2011, when Petitioner had filed a petition under Section 9 of the 1996 Act cannot help the Petitioner. This was a petition seeking interim relief and the Court held the Petitioner entitled to operate the lease for two years on expiry of earlier lease of three years with enhancement of rent by 25% over the earlier paid rent plus development charges and while relegating the Petitioner to invoking the arbitration agreement within six weeks, the Court observed that the overpayment, if any, made by the Petitioner shall be adjusted in future.”

Advocate Anil Goel appeared for the Petitioner, while SPC Om Prakash represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Petitioner had challenged the Arbitral Award before the High Court by filing a Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act). The Court set aside the Award holding that the Award of the Arbitrator was passed in ignorance of of an earlier Judgment.

The Petitioner thereafter filed an application under Sections 152 and 151 of the CPC for rectification/clarification of judgment. However, this application was dismissed by the Court holding that as the Award had been set aside, necessary consequences would follow as per law.

Court’s Reasoning

The High Court held that the Writ Petition was not maintainable for the enforcement of the Arbitral Award.

The Court relied on the decision in Bhaven Construction v. Executive Engineer (2022), wherein the Supreme Court held that “when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation, held that it is prudent for a Judge to not exercise discretion to allow judicial interference beyond the procedure under the enactment and this power under Article 226 needs to be exercised in exceptional rarity, wherein one party is left remediless under the Statute or a clear ‘bad faith’ is shown by one of the parties.”

The Bench explained that “it is clear that while the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 cannot be ousted as this is an inviolable part of the Constitution of India yet it is a matter of prudence for the High Court to not exercise the discretion when the remedy lies in a statutory regime.”

Consequently, the Court held, “In my view, no extraordinary or exceptional circumstances have been made out by the Petitioner warranting interference by this Court in a writ jurisdiction and directing refund.”

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition.

Cause Title: Ramchander v. Union Of India & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:1804)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Anil Goel, Aditya Goel and Chanchal Sharma

Respondents: SPC Om Prakash; Advocates Chandresh Pratap and Swati Mishra

Click here to read/download the Judgment