Summary
While hearing an arbitration appeal against refusal of interim relief over a hotel partnership dispute, the High Court called for a criminal case diary, summoned the investigating officer and transferred the investigation. The Supreme Court held that those directions exceeded Section 37 jurisdiction. It set aside the three challenged orders and required the appeal to be decided within its statutory scope, expressly preserving the earlier restraint against alienation of the hotel property.
Issues
- Whether an appellate court hearing a Section 37 arbitration appeal could supervise and transfer a related criminal investigation.
Provisions considered
- Sections 9 and 37, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996The appeal against refusal of interim measures was confined to that order; it did not confer criminal-investigation supervisory jurisdiction. (¶ 7-9)
Held
- The appeal required examination of the Commercial Court’s refusal of Section 9 interim relief. Calling for the police status report and case diary, summoning the investigating officer and transferring the investigation diverted the proceedings beyond the appellate court’s limited statutory jurisdiction. (¶ 7-8)
- A party alleging unfair or partial investigation must pursue the appropriate remedy before a competent court on the criminal side. The arbitration appeal could not be used to obtain that relief. (¶ 8)
- Only the three impugned investigation-related orders were set aside. The earlier interim order restraining alienation of the disputed property was expressly preserved, and the Section 37 appeal remained for lawful determination. (¶ 9-10)
Result
Appeals allowed. The orders dated 24 February, 11 March and 29 March 2022 were quashed. The High Court was requested to decide the pending appeal within Section 37 parameters. Its 26 February 2021 restraint against alienation remained intact. Pending applications disposed of; parties to bear their own costs.