By way of background, the matter concerned a dispute between a Kolkata-based company and a Dubai-based company. The Dubai-based company eventually approached the High Court seeking the appointment of an arbitrator.
On May 3, the High Court noted that the dispute between the parties was an international commercial arbitration and that only the Chief Justice of India or his delegate has the power to appoint an arbitrator in such a case. Any such application before the High Court is misconceived and not maintainable, the Court held.
After the Court pointed out this aspect, the petitioner-company’s lawyers unconditionally and unequivocally admitted that the High Court lacked the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Each of the advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioner signed an unconditional apology for filing this application. Even the senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-company confessed that there has been an inadvertent and bonafide error.
Taking a dim view of the lapse, the Court said,
“The more sagacious judicial pronouncements instruct that a judgment should not betray any agitation on the part of the Judge and should not be intemperate in its expression. But public interest demands at times that a cheat be described as such for him and others that he has cheated to be aware that there is appropriate recognition on the basis of the character of a person’s conduct. Plain-speaking must sometimes be used if only to bolster the image of the institution and to instil confidence in it.”
With these observations, the Court dismissed the plea as it was not tenable.
Source: Barandbench
