/2022 INSC 0348/
[NON­REPORTABLE]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3479 OF 2022
M/s. Kelkar & Kelkar          ..Appellant
Versus
M/s. Hotel Pride Executive Pvt. Ltd.               ..Respondent 
J U D G M E N T 
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment and order dated 06.08.2015 passed by the High
Court   of   Judicature   at   Bombay   in   Writ   Petition   No.4442
of   1999   by   which   the   High   Court,   in   exercise   of   Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, has allowed the
said writ petition preferred by the respondent herein and
has   quashed   and   set   aside   the   award   passed   by   the
learned   Arbitrator   and   has   remanded   the   matter   for   de
1

novo   consideration,   the   original   claimant   has   preferred
the present appeal.
1.1 The   dispute   arose   between   the   parties   which   was   the
subject   matter   of   arbitration   before   the   learned
Arbitrator. On the learned Arbitrator declaring the award,
on an application filed by the original claimant – original
plaintiff   vide   order   passed   in   Exhibit   10   in   Regular   Civil
Suit   No.1022/1996,   passed   a   decree   in   terms   of   the
award made by the learned Arbitrator.  By the said award
the   original   respondents   were   directed   to   pay   to   the
original claimants Rs.12,46,663/­.
1.2 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   award   made
by   the   learned   Arbitrator   as   well   as   the   order   passed   by
the   learned   trial   Court   passed   as   per   Exhibit   10   in
making the award a decree, instead of preferring appeals
under the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as
‘the   Act’),  preferred  a   writ   petition   before   the  High   Court
under   Articles   226   and   227   of   the   Constitution   of   India
mainly  on   the  ground   that,   before  the   learned  Arbitrator
was appointed, there was non­compliance of Clause 56 of
2

the   Articles   of   Agreement   and   the   procedure   as   required
under   Clause   56   was   not   followed.     By   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   the   High   Court   has   set   aside   the
award made by the learned Arbitrator on the ground that
the procedure as required under Clause 56 had not been
followed.     Consequently,   the   High   Court   has   remanded
the matter for de novo consideration.
1.3 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court,   the
original claimant has preferred the present appeal.
2. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective   parties   and   considering   the   impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court, we are of
the   opinion   that   against   the   award   made   by   the   learned
Arbitrator   made   under   the   Act   and   against   an   order
passed   by   the   learned   trial   Court   making   the   award   a
decree   and   without   availing   the   alternative   statutory
remedy available by way of appeal under the provisions of
the Act, the High Court ought not to have entertained the
writ   petition   under   Articles   226   and   227   of   the
3

Constitution   of   India.     When   the   statute   provides   a
further   remedy   by   way   of   appeal   against   the   award   and
even   against   the  order   passed   by   the   learned   trial  Court
making   the   award   a   decree   of   the   court,   the   High   Court
ought not to have entertained the writ petition and ought
not to  have set aside the award, in a writ petition under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.  In that
view   of   the   matter   the   impugned   judgment   and   order
passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
3. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent   has   prayed   that   in   that   view   of   the   matter,
liberty   be   reserved   in   favour   of   the   respondent   to   take
further   recourse   to   law   under   the   provisions   of   the   Act
which might have been available against the award made
by   the   learned   Arbitrator   as   well   as   the   order   passed   by
the   learned   trial   Court   as   per   Exhibit   10   making   the
award   a   decree.     It   is   further   prayed   to   make   a   suitable
observation   that  whatever   amount   is   already   paid   to   the
appellant   –  original  claimant   may   be   adjusted   subject  to
4

the   ultimate   outcome   and   the   further   order   that   may   be
passed in future.
4. In   view   of   the   above   and   for   the   reasons   stated   above,
present   Appeal   succeeds.     Impugned   Judgment   and
Order   passed   by   the   High   Court   is   set   aside.     However,
liberty   is   reserved   in   favour   of   the   respondent   to   take
further   recourse   to   law   under   the   provisions   of   the
Arbitration Act, 1940 and in accordance with law against
an   award   made   by   the   learned   Arbitrator   and   the   order
passed   by   the   learned   trial   Court   passed   as   per   Exhibit
10   making   the   award   a   decree   of   the   court   and   if   such
proceedings   are   initiated   within   a   period   of   four   weeks
from   today,   the   same   be   considered   in   accordance   with
law and on its own merits without raising the issue with
regard   to   limitation.       It   goes   without   saying   that   the
amount already  paid to the  appellant  – original  claimant
shall   be   subject   to   the   ultimate   outcome   of   the
proceeding that may be initiated by the respondent.
5

5. In   view   of   the   above   and   for   the   reasons   stated   above,
present   appeal   is   allowed   to   the   aforesaid   extent   only.
However, there shall be no order as to costs. 
…………………………………J.
                  (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
 (B.V. NAGARATHNA)
New Delhi, 
May 04, 2022.
6