G.Ambedkumar, vs V.R.Mr.Poobalan,
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRP(MD)No.2847 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 28/10/2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
CRP(MD) NO. 2847 of 2026
{CNR: HCMD011528922026}
Case QR
and
CMP(MD)No.14639 of 2026
G.Ambedkumar : Petitioner/Respondent
Vs.
st
1.V.R.Mr.Poobalan : 1 Respondent/Arbitrator
Arbitrator,
No.4,139-2, Kovil Street,
Kurunji Nagar, Athikulam,
Madurai-14.
nd
2.B.Jegan Prasadh : 2 Respondent/Petitioner
3.The Additional Block Education Officer,
Kadaladi,
rd rd
Ramanathapuram District. : 3 Respondent/3 Party
st
(1 Respondent is given up)
Prayer:- This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of
st
Constitution of India, to set aside the order passed by the 1 Respondent
in ARB(MD)No.05 of 2025 on the file of the Arbitral Tribunal, Madurai,
dated 19/03/2026.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.C.Swamy
rd
For 3 Respondent : Mr.P.Sathish Kumar
Government Advocate (Civil)
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 07:40:07 pm )
CRP(MD)No.2847 of 2026
O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, seeking to set aside the award, dated 19/03/2026
passed by the first respondent, the learned Sole Arbitrator, in
ARB(MD)No.5 of 2025.
2.The petitioner is the respondent before the learned Sole
Arbitrator. The petitioner states that the second respondent initiated
arbitral proceedings against him before the first respondent alleging that
the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.48,00,000/- and executed a
promissory note agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at the rate
of 12% per annum. It is further alleged that the petitioner had agreed to
refer any dispute arising out of the said transaction to arbitration and had
also agreed to the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator at the instance of the
second respondent.
3.The contention of the petitioner is that the second respondent
failed to produce any separate arbitration agreement executed between
2/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 07:40:07 pm )
CRP(MD)No.2847 of 2026
the parties and instead relied upon the promissory note, which contains a
recital relating to arbitration in the event of any dispute arising out of the
loan transaction. According to the petitioner, there was no valid and
binding arbitration agreement entered into between the parties and
therefore, the arbitral proceedings themselves are without jurisdiction.
4.The petitioner further contended that the learned Sole Arbitrator
did not afford him a proper and effective opportunity to defend the
proceedings and that the interim as well as final orders came to be passed
without his effective participation. It is also contended that the alleged
promissory note was hopelessly barred by limitation and that the learned
Sole Arbitrator ought not to have entertained the claim on that ground.
The petitioner has also questioned the jurisdiction of the learned Sole
Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the alleged monetary claim. Ultimately, by
award, dated 19/03/2026 passed in ARB(MD)No.5 of 2025, the learned
Sole Arbitrator directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.48,00,000/- with
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 04/04/2021 till the date of
realisation. The learned Sole Arbitrator also directed the competent
authority to withhold the salary of the petitioner and remit only the
legally attachable portion thereof, apart from awarding costs. Against
3/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 07:40:07 pm )
CRP(MD)No.2847 of 2026
which, the present civil revision petition has been filed and the same is
posted under the caption “ For Maintainability”.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
since the very appointment and jurisdiction of the learned Sole Arbitrator
are under challenge, this Court can exercise its supervisory jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that
the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity to defend the
proceedings and therefore, the impugned award is liable to be interfered
with by this Court.
6.In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner relied upon the following decisions:-
(i)In Deep Industries Limited Vs. Oil and
Natural Gas Corporation Limited and another ,
reported in (2020) 15 SCC 706;
(ii)In Bhaven Construction through Authorised
Signatory Premjibhai K.Shah Vs. Executive Engineer,
Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited and others ,
reported in (2022) 1 SCC 75; and
(iii)The unreported decision of this Court in CRP
No.5192 of 2026, dated 25/09/2026, in Rafiq Ahamed
and another Vs. M/s. Sundaram Finance Limited,
No.21, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600 002 .
4/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 07:40:07 pm )
CRP(MD)No.2847 of 2026
7.However, this Court is unable to accept the said contention.
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides a
specific statutory remedy for setting aside an arbitral award. The said
provision specifically contemplates an application to the competent Court
for setting aside an arbitral award on the grounds enumerated therein.
8.In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhaven
Construction through Authorised Signatory Premjibhai K.Shah Vs.
Executive Engineer, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited and
another , reported in (2022) 1 SCC 75 , considered the scope of
interference by the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution in arbitral proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
emphasised that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a self-
contained code and that the statutory remedies provided under the Act
ought ordinarily to be exhausted before invoking the constitutional
jurisdiction of the High Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held
that interference under Articles 226 and 227 can be resorted to only in
exceptional circumstances.
5/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 07:40:07 pm )
CRP(MD)No.2847 of 2026
9.The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Deep Industries Limited Vs. Oil
and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and another , reported in (2020)
15 SCC 706 , has also emphasised the principle of minimal judicial
intervention in arbitral proceedings. It was observed that where the statute
provides a specific mechanism for redressal of grievances, the High Court
should not ordinarily permit the party to bypass such statutory
mechanism by invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the
Constitution. The Court also cautioned that the object of minimising
judicial intervention in arbitral proceedings would be defeated if the High
Court were to be approached under Articles 226 or 227 against every
order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal.
10.The said principle has been reiterated and further clarified by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.K.John Vs. S.Mukanchand Bothra and
HUF (Died), represented by LRs. and others , reported in AIR 2026 SC
2041 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the appropriate statutory
remedy to challenge an arbitral award is under Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and not under Article 227 of the
6/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 07:40:07 pm )
CRP(MD)No.2847 of 2026
Constitution of India or Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The
Supreme Court has reiterated that the Arbitration Act constitutes a self-
contained statutory framework governing the challenge to an arbitral
award.
11.In the present case, the challenge raised by the petitioner is
ultimately directed against the final arbitral award dated 19/03/2026. The
petitioner has raised several grounds touching upon the existence and
validity of the arbitration agreement, the jurisdiction of the learned Sole
Arbitrator, the alleged denial of opportunity to defend the proceedings,
and the alleged bar of limitation. All such grounds, insofar as they
constitute grounds for setting aside the award, are matters which can be
urged before the competent Court in an application under Section 34 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
12.Merely because the petitioner has questioned the jurisdiction of
the learned Sole Arbitrator or the validity of the arbitration agreement, the
same cannot, by itself, confer a right upon the petitioner to bypass the
statutory remedy under Section 34 of the Act. The existence of an
arbitration agreement and the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal can be
7/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 07:40:07 pm )
CRP(MD)No.2847 of 2026
examined in accordance with the scheme of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner cannot circumvent the statutory
remedy provided under the Act by invoking Article 227 of the
Constitution as a matter of course.
13.The principle laid down in the case of Deep Industries Limited
and Bhaven Construction is that the constitutional jurisdiction of the
High Court is not completely ousted, but its exercise in arbitral matters is
confined to exceptional circumstances where interference is warranted
and the statutory remedy is not efficacious. In the present case, the
petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy under Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to challenge the final award.
Therefore, no exceptional circumstance warranting interference under
Article 227 has been made out.
14.The above decisions, in fact, reiterate the principle that the
jurisdiction under Article 227 is to be exercised sparingly in matters
arising out of arbitral proceedings and that the statutory remedies under
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 should ordinarily be
8/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 07:40:07 pm )
CRP(MD)No.2847 of 2026
exhausted. Therefore, the said decisions do not advance the case of the
petitioner.
15.In view of the specific statutory remedy available to the
petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996,
this Court is of the considered view that the present Civil Revision
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the
final arbitral award dated 19/03/2026, is not maintainable.
16.Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as not
maintainable, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the appropriate
remedy available under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in
accordance with law. The Registry is directed to return the impugned
award and other original papers, if any, after retaining the copies of the
same to the petitioner, enabling him to approach the appropriate forum in
accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
. 28/10/2026
Index:Yes/No
9/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 07:40:07 pm )
CRP(MD)No.2847 of 2026
Internet:Yes/No
er
To,
1.The District Munsif, Madurai Taluk.
2.The Section Officer, VR/ER Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
10/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 07:40:07 pm )
R.POORNIMA.,J
er
CRP(MD)No.2847 of 2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 07:40:07 pm )