Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against orders dated April 15, 2000 and June 15,2000 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal in a proceeding under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Act") thereby rejecting an application of the petitioner demanding resignation of an arbitrator from the Arbitral Tribunal.
(2.) Mr. Dasgupta, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties at the very outset raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By relying upon two decisions of the Supreme Court, one in the case of Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees of Bharat Bank Ltd reported in AIR 1950 SC 188 and the other, in the case of Engineering Mazdoor Sabha v. Hind Cycles Ltd. reported in AIR 1963 SC page 874, Mr. Dasgupta contends that in the instant case, the tribunal having been appointed by the agreement of the parties, should be deemed to be domestic tribunal and as such Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked against decision of any such Tribunal. According to Mr. Dasgupta, in order to maintain an application under Article 227 of the Constitution, the tribunal, whose order is sought to be impugned, must be one, constituted by the State.
(3.) Mr. Roychowdhury, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has opposed the aforesaid contention of Mr. Dasgupta with vehemence. According to Mr. Roychowdhury, position of an Arbitral Tribunal under the Act is different from that of an arbitrator under the Arbitration Act, 1940 ("1940 Act"). Mr. Roychowdhury by referring to the various provisions of the Act and those of the 1940 Act points out that under the Act, an award passed by an Arbitral Tribunal can be enforced like a decree without having any stamp of the Court which was not provided in the 1940 Act. Mr. Roychowdhury further submits that under the Act, the Arbitral Tribunal has been given authority to pass even interim orders and some of such orders are even made appealable before the Court. Those provisions, Mr. Roychowdhury contends, suggest that an Arbitral Tribunal is vested with the function of the State in the matter of imparting Justice although such tribunal is not 'constituted' by the State.;