The Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court held that erroneous findings by the courts on facts and law cannot justify approaching the court under Article 227 unless a manifest miscarriage of justice has occurred due to the order passed by the said courts.

The Bench of Justice Puneet Gupta observed that "a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India only because the courts have interpreted some document in a manner which is not considered to be suitable by the party to the proceedings initiated before the court".

Advocate Amandeep Singh appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Anil Kaushik appeared for the Respondent.

In a nutshell, a suit was filed by the Petitioner-plaintiff before the court of Additional Special Mobile Magistrate for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants, whereby the plaintiff sought to restrain first & second defendants from appointing third defendant as authorized main dealer with respect to sale, service, repair and spare parts of first Respondent (TVS Company Limited). The defendants thereafter moved an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Trial court held that the case of the Plaintiff was covered by an arbitration clause and therefore lacks jurisdiction to try and decide the suit. The appeal challenging the order of the Trial was also dismissed by the Appellate court. Hence, present petition.

After considering the submissions, the Bench observed that in exercise of power vested under Article 227 of the Constitution, this Court cannot normally interpret the clauses of the agreement and the applicability of the same qua the dispute which has been raised by the party in the suit.

"The Petitioners have availed remedy against the order passed by the trial court as the plaintiff has invoked the jurisdiction of the District court by filing the appeal though it is different matter that the Petitioner failed to get any relief before the Appellate court as the Appellate court on consideration of the matter dismissed the same being not competent against the order impugned before it," noted the Bench.

Observing that the petition is misconceived, the High Court observed that if the Petitioner has a grievance regarding orders passed by the Trial Court and Appellate Courts, then he should explore the remedy which may be available to him under the law and not rush to the court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Ajay Auto Mobiles v. TVS Motor Company and Ors.