- (1.) A preliminary point is raised over the maintainability of the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the challenge is thrown to an order passed by Ld. Arbitrator rejecting an application under Section 16(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the petitioner. By the said order the Ld. Arbitrator has kept all the points open to be agitated at the appropriate time. It would be unnecessarily burdening the judgment in recording the facts involved in this revisional application extensively.
(2.) Undisputedly, the dispute, which arose under the agreement dated 15th September, 2008 and addendum dated 18th September, 2008 was referred to the sole arbitrator. A preliminary objection was raised before the arbitrator under Section 16(1) of the Act on various ground including the ground relating to fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation. By the impugned order the arbitrator rejected the said application keeping all such point open to be agitated at a later point of time.
(3.) Admittedly Section 37 of the said Act does not include an order passed under Section 16(1) of the Act and therefore, according to the petitioner, the remedy lies under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner the High Court enjoins the power of superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals through out the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction and therefore the arbitrator who acts as an Arbitral Tribunal under the said Act is subject to supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. It admits no ambiguity to say that the power of superintendence under Article 227 is exercised over the subordinate courts and the tribunals both administratively and judicially. Such power, in essence, is wide and discretionary, to be exercised as a court of equity to ensure the advancement of justice and uproot injustice.;