Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Concrete Developers Llp vs Gourav Churiwal And Anr on 5 August, 2026
D/L. 1
05.08.2026
Ct No. 2
Mujahid
CO 3429 of 2024
With
CAN 4 of 2026
CONCRETE DEVELOPERS LLP
VS
GOURAV CHURIWAL AND ANR.
Mr. Rajarshi Dutta
Mr. Shounak Mukhopadhyay
Ms. Neha Mishra
...for the petitioner
Mr. Kumarjit Banerjee
Ms. Sanchari Chakraborty
Ms. Avishikta Biswas
...for the respondents
1. Present petition has been filed challenging the
order dated 11th July, 2024 in Title Suit No.617 of
2021 vide which the learned Civil Judge (Senior
Division), 1st Court at Alipore rejected the application
under Sections 5 and 8 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 37 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act provides an appeal if the
application under Section 8 has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that though an appeal is provided under Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996, however, the petitioner
can always invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the
court and, therefore, the present revision petition
cannot be said to be non-maintainable.
2
3. Learned counsel for the opposite parties
states that in view of the specific provision in the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the present revision
petition may not be maintainable.
4. The Court has considered the submissions
and perused the record carefully. The Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 is a complete code in itself.
The legislature and the courts have time and again
discouraged the judicial interference in the
arbitration proceedings and concept of minimal
interference of the judicial intervention has been
emphasized in this regard. Reference can also be
made to Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996.
5. Though the jurisdiction under Article 227 is
wide but it has to be exercised in circumspection. It
has repeatedly been held that such a jurisdiction is to
be exercised sparingly and cannot be invoked to
usurp the jurisdiction of another court or if there is
an alternative equally efficacious remedy. The
existence of a remedy for appeal may be taken as a
mere total bar to exercise of supervisory jurisdiction
under Article 227. Reliance can be placed upon K.
Valarmathi & ors. vs. Kumaresan, 2025 SCC Online
Sc 985.
3
6. It is also advantageous to place reliance upon
P. Suresh vs. D. Kalivani & Ors., 2026 SCC OnLine
SC 143, wherein it was inter alia held as under:-
“7.When the powers under Article 227 of the
Constitution are of supervisory nature and
when the aforestated settled dictum of law is
that the High Court does not act as a court
of appeal or a court of error, it would
logically follow that the powers under Article
227 would not be exercised when the non-
exercise of such powers does not result into
miscarriage of justice or deprivation of
remedy in law to a party.
7.1. It is to be conceived as one of the
prohibited area for exercising Article 227
powers where, in respect of the grievance for
which party has remedy in law, these
powers are surely to be invoked. The
principle is therefore to be emphasized that
the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution has to
be treated as an exceptional resort when an
alternative efficacious civil remedy by way of
appeal or revision or any other, like Order
VII Rule 11, CPC in the present case, is
available to the party for the redressal of the
grievance.
7.2. The proposition that the availability of
alternative remedy shall be legitimately
construed to displace the exercise of
Constitutional jurisdiction by the High
Court, is true not only for the purpose of
exercising powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution but also for the purpose of
invoking Article 227 of the Constitution.
7.3. In the garb of exercising supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution, the High Court is not expected
to engulf the specific statutory remedy or
provision in law and, thus, become a
supervisor over the court below or the
tribunal, as the case may be. It would be a
legally wise exercise of discretion for the
High Court to adopt and adhere to such
self-imposed discipline and to insist that the
aggrieved party should take recourse to
such alternative remedy or statutory
4
provision available in law, especially, for the
case falling in category indicated in
Virudhunagar (supra) where remedy
available in the CPC for the cases falling
under category/other law also, where such
specific statutory remedy is available, the
dictum laid down herein is true to grant
extent.
7.4. As stated above, embargo in this regard
would have to be construed as near total
when provision is available in CPC. It is
held, therefore, that once the specific
provision under Order VII Rule 11 of the
CPC, is available, the High Court cannot
exercise powers under Article 227 to reject
or strike off the plaint. For such relief, the
specific provision under Order VII Rule 11,
CPC, will have to be resorted to, on the
grounds mentioned in the said provision.”
7. A bare perusal of this judgment makes it
abundantly clear that if there is an alternative equally
efficacious remedy the party should be availing such
a remedy. The court in extraordinary or exceptional
circumstances can always invoke the jurisdiction
under Article 227, but if there is a statutory provision
for appeal, the revisional jurisdiction should be
discouraged to be exercised.
8. In view view of the submissions made, the
revision petition stands disposed of and the
connected application is also disposed of.
9. The petitioner is granted liberty to take
appropriate legal remedies in accordance with law.
Certified copies, if any, on the record be returned to
the petitioner as per rules.
5
10. All parties shall act on the server copy of this
order duly downloaded from the official website of
this Court.
(Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.)
