M. Rajeev Kumar & S. Joseph v The Kerala Football Association & Thiruvananthapuram District Football Association & RAFEEQ K.M & Selvakkumar C (OP(C) No. 460 of 2023)

``` OP(C) NO. 460 OF 2023 ``` ``` 1 ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS`** ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1944 OP(C) NO. 460 OF 2023 ``` ``` (I.A NO.02/2023 & I.A. NO.04/2023 IN A.C. NO.02/2021 OF ``` ## **`ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`** ## **`PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NOS.2&3/PETITINERS/RESPONDENT NOS.1 &2:`** ``` 1M. RAJEEV KUMAR AGED 54 YEARS THE FORMER PRESIDENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION, S/O MUKUNDAN, PADMAVILAS, T.C. 14/252 POONTHI ROAD, KUMARAPURAM, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695011 ``` ``` 2S. JOSEPH AGED 50 YEARS THE FORMER HONORARY SECRETARY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION, S/O SILVA AARAMAM, ADIMALATHURA, CHOWARA P.O, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695501 BY ADVS. ANOOP BHASKAR AMMU MANOHARAN NARAYANAN SATHYA SREEKUMARAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT NOS.1,4 &`** ## **`PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT & RESPOONDENT NOS.3,4 & 5:`** - `1 THE KERALA FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION (REG. NO. Q 197/89) VIP SECTOR A, 1ST FLOOR, JNI STADIUM, COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, PIN - 682017` - `2 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION GV RAJA BUILDING, OPP: MUSEUM GARDENS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, KFA, PIN - 695033` - `3 RAFEEQ K.M S/O K. SAIDUKUTTY A-6, RBI OFFICERS QUARTERS, BELHAVEN PALACE KOWDIYAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003` ``` OP(C) NO. 460 OF 2023 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` 4SELVAKUMAR .C S/O C. CHELLAPAN KAUMANA, CHERUVICKAL, SREEKARIYAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695017 ``` ``` THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` OP(C) NO. 460 OF 2023 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** The original petition is filed, to set aside Ext.P7 order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal in I.A No.4/2023 in A.C 2/2021. The petitioners are the respondents 1 and 2 and the respondents are the claimant and the respondents 3 to 5 before the Tribunal. 2. The petitioners’ case is that, even though they had filed I.A No.4/2023 before the Tribunal, to permit them to hold an oral hearing for presentation of their evidence, by issuing summons to the Secretary of the Kerala Football Association and to examine him, the Arbitrator, by the impugned order, has held that the application cannot be allowed at the present stage. Ext.P7 order is erroneous and unsustainable in law. Hence the original petition. 3. Heard; Sri.Anoop Bhaskar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, on admission. ``` OP(C) NO. 460 OF 2023 ``` ``` 4 ``` 4. Sri.Anoop Bhaskar vehementallly argued that the learned Arbitrator has passed Ext.P7 order in flagrant violation of Section 24 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( in short, ‘Act’), and the law laid down by the Delhi High Court in **Sukhbir Singh v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd** [2020 SCC OnLine Del 228]. In **Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and another v. Emta Coal Limited and another** [(2020) 17 SCC 93], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that this Court can interfere in the arbitral proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, if there is patent lack of inherent jurisdiction. Thus, Ext.P7 order is liable to be set aside. 5. The petitioners have filed Ext.P2 application under Section 24 (1) of the Act, seeking the following relief: “For the reasons set-forth in the accompanying affidavit, this Hon’ble Arbitral Tribunal may be pleased to grant an order permitting respondent Nos.1 &2 to hold ``` OP(C) NO. 460 OF 2023 ``` ``` 5 ``` oral hearings for the presentation of evidence by issuing summons/notice to the Secretary of Kerala Football Association to examine him.” 6. Section 24 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, reads as follows: “24. **Hearings and written proceedings:** (1) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral tribunal shall decide whether to hold oral hearings for the presentation of evidence or for oral argument, or whether the proceedings shall be conducted on the basis of documents and other materials: **Provided that the arbitral tribunal shall hold oral hearings, at an appropriate stage of the proceedings,** on a request by a party, unless the parties have agreed that no oral hearing shall be held: [Provided further that the arbitral tribunal shall, as far as possible, hold oral hearings for the presentation of evidence or for oral argument on day-today basis, and not grant any adjournment. Unless sufficient cause is made out, and may impose costs including exemplary costs on the party seeking adjournment without any sufficient cause”]. 7. The learned Arbitrator, by Ext.P7 order, has held thus: “16. Anyway granting permission to examine the Secretary or issuing notice to him for his presence at this ``` OP(C) NO. 460 OF 2023 ``` ``` 6 ``` stage is not allowed and these IAs have to be disposed, of course subject to the above observations. Points found accordingly. 17. In the result, these IAs stand dismissed. No cost.” 8. A reading of Ext.P7 order shows that the Arbitrator has held that he was not inclined at the present stage to permit the petitioners to let in oral evidence. 9. A reading of the first proviso to Section 24(1) of the Act, reveals that the Arbitral Tribunal is conferred with the discretion to decide the stage at which the oral hearing has to be conducted. It is invoking the above discretion that the Arbitrator has deferred permission for oral evidence. 10. Even otherwise, Section 5 of the Act, mandates that no judicial authority shall intervene with the arbitral process except as provided under the provisions of the Act. ``` OP(C) NO. 460 OF 2023 ``` ``` 7 ``` 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in **Bhaven Construction v. Executive Engineer, Sardar Sarovar, Narmada Nigam Ltd** [(2022) 1 SCC 75] and **Deep Industries Ltd v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation** [(2020) 15 SCC 706], has categorically held that the High Court shall only in the case of exceptional rarity interfere in the arbitral process under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. Going by Ext.P7 order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, I am of the definite view that the case on hand is not a case falling within the category of exceptional rarity. Thus, I am not inclined to entertain the original petition. Thus, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to work out their remedies, in accordance with law, the original petition is dismissed. ## **Sd/-** **C.S.DIAS** **JUDGE** ma/22.2.2023 ``` OP(C) NO. 460 OF 2023 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`A PPENDIX OF OP(C) 460/2023`** - `PETITIONER EXHIBITS ExhibitP1 TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO. 02/2023 FILED BY RESPONDENT NOS. 3 & 4` - `ExhibitP2 TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO. 04/2023 FILED BY PETITIONERS` - `ExhibitP3 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY RESPONDENT NO. 1 TO I.A. NO. 02/2023` - `Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY RESPONDENT NO. 1 TO I.A. NO. 04/2023` - `Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY PETITIONERS TO I.A. NO. 02/2023` - `Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY RESPONDENT NOS. 3 & 4 TO I.A. NO. 04/2023` - `Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF COMMON ORDER DATED 15.02.2023 IN I.A. NO. 02/2023 AND I.A. NO. 04/2023` - `Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF DAILY PROCEEDINGS SHEET OF 15.02.2023 IN A.C. NO. 02/2021` - `Exhibit P9 STATEMENT OF CLAIM FILED BY RESPONDENT NO. 1 IN A.C. NO. 02/2021` - `Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF DEFENCE FILED BY PETITIONERS IN A.C. NO. 02/2021` - `Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF DEFENCE FILED BY RESPONDENT NOS. 3 & 4 IN A.C. NO. 02/2021` - `Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN I.A. NO. 09/2022 IN A.C. NO. 02/2021` - `Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF COMMON ORDER IN I.A. NO. 10/2022 AND I.A. NO. 11/2022`