SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J. - (1.) The short questions which fall for consideration in this case are as follows: (i) Whether the High Court has the power of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India over an interlocutory order passed by an Arbitral Tribunal in view of the bar contemplated in Section 5, read with Sections 34 and 37, of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; and (ii) (Subject to the decision rendered on the preceding question,) whether the Arbitral Tribunal refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law in refusing to permit the petitioner to move his application for appointment of handwriting expert at the outset, instead of deciding such issue on merits.
(2.) At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party raises an objection regarding maintainability of the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in view of the specific bar envisaged in Section 5, read with Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Act ("the 1996 Act", for short). In support of such submission, learned counsel cites the following judgments: (a) SBP and CO. vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD. and ANR. [ (2005) 8 SCC 618 ] (b) DEEP INDUSTRIES LIMITED vs. ONGC LTD. and ANR. [ (2020) 14 SCC 706 ] (c) BHAVEN CONSTRUCTION vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SARDAR SAROVAR NARMADA NIGAM LTD. and ANR. [2021 SCC OnLine SC 8 ]
(3.) Learned counsel further argues that the scheme of the 1996 Act envisages early disposal of arbitral proceedings, as opposed to matters pending in courts, and thus limits challenge against all interlocutory orders, except those specifically enumerated in Section 37 thereof, at the time of challenging the final award under Section 34 of the 1996 Act. Hence, Section 5 the 1996 Act has specifically barred judicial intervention except as provided in the said Act itself.;