Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Union of India and Another Vs. M.S. Sachdeva

Union of India and Another vs M.S. Sachdeva

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Aug 28, 2000
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/483960

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Special Appeal No. 310 of 1999 with Special Appeal Nos. 307 and 308 of 1999
Subject
Arbitration

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Arbitration - special appeal - Chapter 9 Rule 10 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, Section 11 (6) of Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996 and Article 136 of Constitution of India - order appointing arbitrator passed under Section 11 (6) is administrative order - special appeal against such order under Article...

Key legal issue
Arbitration
Acts & sections
Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 - Rule 10; Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 11 (6); Constitution of India - Article 136

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Union of India and Another

Advocate K.K. Nigam, Adv.

Respondent

M.S. Sachdeva

Advocate C. S. C.

Legal References

Acts
Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 - Rule 10; Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 11 (6); Constitution of India - Article 136
Cases Referred
Ador Samia Pvt. Ltd. v. Peekay Holdings Ltd. and
Reported In
2000(4)AWC3082

Excerpt

arbitration - special appeal - chapter 9 rule 10 of allahabad high court rules, 1952, section 11 (6) of arbitration and reconciliation act, 1996 and article 136 of constitution of india - order appointing arbitrator passed under section 11 (6) is administrative order - special appeal against such order under article 136 is not maintainable-appeal dismissed. - - supreme court held that 'it is now well-settled that petition under article 136 can be for challenging a judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of india. supreme court, the special appeals fail on merits and are accordingly dismissed.shyamal kumar sen, c.j. 1. weare of the view that the order appointing arbitrator under section 11(6) of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996, is not a judicial function. it is an administrative one. being designated by the hon. the chief justice, the hon'blc judge passed an order appointing an arbitrator. we are of the view that no special appeal lies against the appointment of an arbitrator. this position has now been settled by the hon. supreme court in ador samia pvt. ltd. v. peekay holdings ltd. and others, 1999 14) ccc 67 (sc), wherein the hon. supreme court held that 'it is now well-settled that petition under article 136 can be for challenging a judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of india.as the learned chief justice or his designate under section 11(6) of the act acts in administrative capacity as held by this court in the aforesaid decision, it is obvious that this order is not passed by any court exercising any judicial function nor it is a tribunal having trappings of a 'judicial authority. orders passed by the learned chief justice under section 11(6) of the arbitration and conciliation act being of an administrative nature cannot be subjected to any challenge directly under article 136 of the constitution of india.2. in view of dictum of hon. supreme court, the special appeals fail on merits and are accordingly dismissed.3. interim orders, if any standsvacated.

Full Judgment

Shyamal Kumar Sen, C.J.

1. Weare of the view that the order appointing arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is not a judicial function. It is an administrative one. Being designated by the Hon. the Chief Justice, the Hon'blc Judge passed an order appointing an Arbitrator. We are of the view that no special appeal lies against the appointment of an Arbitrator. This position has now been settled by the Hon. Supreme Court in Ador Samia Pvt. Ltd. v. Peekay Holdings Ltd. and others, 1999 14) CCC 67 (SC), wherein the Hon. Supreme Court held that 'It is now well-settled that petition under Article 136 can be for challenging a judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any Court or Tribunal in the territory of India.As the learned Chief Justice or his designate under Section 11(6) of the Act acts in administrative capacity as held by this Court in the aforesaid decision, it is obvious that this order is not passed by any Court exercising any judicial function nor it is a Tribunal having trappings of a 'judicial authority. Orders passed by the learned Chief Justice under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act being of an administrative nature cannot be subjected to any challenge directly under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

2. In view of dictum of Hon. Supreme Court, the special appeals fail on merits and are accordingly dismissed.

3. Interim orders, if any standsvacated.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial