The recent decision by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Sarada Construction versus Bhupendra Pramanik has shed light on the scope of review under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The petitioner in the case sought review of an order passed under section 11 of the Act, which appointed an arbitrator. However, the High Court observed that the Act is a complete code and does not provide for review of such orders. The court also referred to a Supreme Court judgment wherein it was held that the High Court does not have the power to review its orders passed under section 11 of the Act.
The proposition of law that arises from the Calcutta High Court’s decision in Sarada Construction versus Bhupendra Pramanik is that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a complete code and does not provide for review of orders passed under section 11 of the Act.
The court’s decision has significant implications for parties involved in arbitration proceedings. This decision highlights the finality and certainty of the appointment of arbitrators and emphasizes the need for parties to raise all objections at the time of appointment, as they cannot seek review of the appointment order later.
