ABSTRACT
The article analyses the role played by the curative jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Indian constitution. The analysis shall be made in a two-fold fashion. Firstly, the article shall explore the extent and application of the curative jurisdiction in general perspective. Secondly, the article shall explore the general interpretation of the curative jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the context of the Arbitration and Conciliation act. The analysis is made using the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Arbitration and Conciliation act.
INTRODUCTION
The curative jurisdiction exists to achieve a two-fold purpose as reiterated throughout multiple judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme court wherein the court has specifically held that the curative jurisdiction exists to avoid miscarriage of justice and to allow the hon’ble court to review its own judgement. This is made to further protect the interest of the public and preserve the public’s faith in the judiciary system. Furthermore, there is an increasing need for the curative jurisdiction to be extended to arbitral matters as there are severe deficiencies in some cases which require the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s intervention to review its own judgement to provide solace to aggrieved party and allow justice to flourish.
KEYWORDS
Curative Jurisdiction, Arbitration, Arbitral Rewards, Appealable Orders.
MAIN BODY
The concept of curative jurisdiction was established in theory but was very rarely utilized by the Hon’ble Supreme court as the same lacked established guidelines or rather an established framework within which curative applications can be dealt with. However, with the rise in number of cases, the chances of mistakes increase as even the judges are human and mistakes are an agreed upon aspect of human life. But there was no established medium to correct any potential or existing mistakes in a judgement and the same was true until the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Ruppa Hurra.
The case of Ruppa Hurra V Ashok Hurra wherein the court went through the writ petition filed challenging the judgement of the hon’ble supreme court. The reasoning given by the counsel for petitioner relied on the fact that the supreme court is empowered with inherent powers which includes the right to pass any orders to achieve complete justice as enshrined under article 142 of the Indian constitution. Furthermore, the counsel argued that there is a need for a narrow and strict interpretation of the curative petition jurisdiction to achieve a dual effect. The first effect refers to the opportunity available for the aggrieved whose rights were infringed due to wrongful judgement that was passed without evaluating necessary documents or any other mistake which led the judgement run sour and the second effect is to curtail unnecessary appeals to hon’ble supreme court, in other words to prevent abuse of process of law.
With the advent of the aforementioned judgement, the Hon’ble Supreme court laid down the following as the eligibility criteria for a case to be established under the curative application jurisdiction. The criteria are,
- The petition must show that the grounds for reconsideration were also presented in the review petition and that the review was dismissed without a detailed hearing.
- It must include a certification by a Senior Advocate confirming the fulfilment of the requirements.
- The petition should first be examined by a Bench of the three senior-most judges and, if necessary, the original Bench that passed the judgment.
The hon’ble court practiced these structural requirements to establish whether the petition is maintainable before the Hon’ble court. But the same does not seem to be relevant or rather narrow when the jurisdiction is extended to the arbitral rewards. This required the hon’ble court to court to propose a liberal interpretation for the matters which fall within the ambit of Arbitration and Conciliation or more specifically it refers to appealable orders as envisioned under the section 37 of the statute shall also be considered when the petition seeking curative jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court is sought in the cases of arbitral rewardws. To better understand the grounds the section 37 of the act is stated,
- Appealable orders. — (1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders (and from no others) to
the Court authorized by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the Court passing the order,
namely: —
3
[(a) refusing to refer the parties to arbitration under section 8;
(b) granting or refusing to grant any measure under section 9;
(c) setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under section 34.]
(2) Appeal shall also lie to a court from an order of the arbitral tribunal—
(a) accepting the plea referred to in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 16; or
(b) granting or refusing to grant an interim measure under section 17.
(3) No second appeal shall lie from an order passed in appeal under this section, but nothing in this section shall affect or take away any right to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The case of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd is relied upon to further elucidate the point that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has the inherent power to rely on the grounds laid down in section 37 of the act is of extreme importance as the case entailed reversal of the arbitral tribunal order on the basis that the tribunal is found to be biased and failed to appreciate the evidence and arguments of the Delhi Metro Corporation Ltd. Furthermore, the case has laid down that the Hon’ble Court has the inherent power under article 142 of the Indian constitution along with the section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation act to extend the curative jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice in matters including arbitral rewards.
CONCLUSION
The Hon’ble Supreme court has the jurisdiction to review its own judgements that reached the doorstep of the Hon’ble Supreme court through Arbitral Proceedings. Furthermore, the Hon’ble court has laid down the following the two conditions to prove the maintainability of such petitions and the conditions are: –
- Establish the satisfaction of the structural requirements as laid down in the case of Rupa Ashok hurra case
- Establish a prima facie case within the meaning of section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation act.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY LALITHA SASANKA G
