Writ Petition Challenges Exparte Arbitration Award inSunil Pawar and Govind Pawar’s case in Karnataka High Court


Sunil Pawar And Anr vs Gilada Finance And Investment Ltd

11 May, 2023

Bench: Hon’ble E.S.Indiresh




On May 11, 2023, Justice E.S. Indiresh of the Kalaburagi Bench of the High Court of Karnataka addressed a writ petition filed by Sunil Pawar and Govind Pawar. The petitioners sought to quash an exparte arbitration award issued on April 16, 2019, in Arbitration Claim No. 53/2018. This blog post provides a summary of the case and the court’s decision.


Sunil Pawar and Govind Pawar, both coolies residing in Kalaburagi, Karnataka, approached the court to challenge an exparte arbitration award. The details regarding the nature of the dispute and the parties involved were not explicitly mentioned in the available information.

Summary of Arguments:

The counsel for the petitioners argued that the exparte arbitration award should be quashed. However, the court pointed out that as per Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the impugned award is considered an appealable order. Therefore, the court concluded that a writ petition was not the appropriate legal remedy for the petitioners.

Court’s Decision:

After hearing the arguments put forth by the petitioners’ counsel, the court concluded that the writ petition was not maintainable in this case. The court noted that since the exparte arbitration award was appealable under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the appropriate course of action for the petitioners would be to approach the competent court for redressal of their grievance. The court disposed of the writ petition but reserved the liberty for the petitioners to present their grounds and concerns before the competent court.



In the case of Sunil Pawar and Govind Pawar, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed their writ petition challenging an exparte arbitration award. The court highlighted that the impugned award fell under the category of appealable orders as per Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Consequently, the court determined that the petitioners should seek recourse through the appropriate legal channels by approaching the competent court. This ruling emphasizes the importance of following the correct legal procedure when challenging arbitration awards, thereby ensuring a fair resolution of disputes.

“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 fall into a 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.”


Click here to view judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *