"In Justice, Technicalities Must Bend": Allahabad High Court Allows Conversion of Article 227 Petition Into Section 37 Arbitration Appeal to Avoid Multiplicity

“The Court has jurisdiction to convert one proceeding into another… when justice so demands, procedural technicalities cannot stand in the way” — On September 2, 2025, the Allahabad High Court held that a petition originally filed under Article 227 of the Constitution can be converted into an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, provided conditions of limitation and court fee are met. This significant ruling was delivered by Justice Manish Kumar Nigam, who emphasized that substantive justice should not be sacrificed at the altar of technical rigidity, especially when conversion can prevent multiplicity of proceedings.

The Court allowed the petitioner's plea to convert the Article 227 petition — which had challenged the rejection of objections filed under Section 34 against an arbitral award — into a statutory appeal under Section 37, holding that such procedural rectification is "permissible and within judicial discretion", citing binding precedent.

Petition under Article 226/227 Challenging Section 34 Rejection of Objections Against Arbitral Award

The dispute stemmed from arbitral proceedings between the Union of India and M/s Bhular Construction Company, culminating in an arbitral award dated 27.05.2002. The Union of India, aggrieved by the award, filed objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. These objections were rejected by the District Judge, Agra on 25.03.2010 in Misc. Case No. 454 of 2002.

Challenging the rejection, the petitioner initially filed a writ petition under Article 226, later amended to an Article 227 petition. However, during hearing, an objection was raised by the respondents asserting that the proper remedy lay in an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, rendering even the Article 227 petition not maintainable.

Maintainability Disputed – Appeal under Section 37 is Statutory Remedy, Not a Constitutional Writ Route

The respondents argued forcefully that since Section 37 expressly provides for an appeal against orders rejecting objections under Section 34, the constitutional writ jurisdiction (whether under Article 226 or 227) should not be invoked. Citing precedents including Ram Mohan Lal Brij Bhushan Lal v. Union of India, and relying on Vishesh Kumar v. Shanti Prasad, it was contended that proceedings like writ petitions or revisions are not interchangeable with statutory appeals, and conversion should not be permitted.

Court Reaffirms Discretionary Power to Convert Proceedings – Technical Objections Cannot Override Substantive Justice

Rejecting the respondents’ rigid interpretation, Justice Nigam held that: "In view of the case law discussed above, I am of the opinion that there is no impediment... the Court has jurisdiction to convert one into another subject to limitation and court fees as the case may be."

The Court relied upon the Full Bench decision in Kailash Chandra v. Ram Naresh Gupta (1982 All CJ 608), which distinguished the Supreme Court ruling in Vishesh Kumar v. Shanti Prasad. While the latter disapproved automatic substitution of revisions with writs, it did not bar the court from allowing conversion through proper procedure. The High Court emphasized that conversion is not about identity of proceedings, but a judicial discretion exercised upon procedural compliance.

Also cited was Reliable Water Supply Service of India (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 2083, where the Supreme Court approved the conversion of an appeal into revision, establishing that substance of justice trumps procedural form.

Court Applies Equitable Consideration to Allow Conversion

The Court noted that the petition had already been entertained and substantial time had elapsed since filing. It remarked that forcing the petitioner to now initiate a fresh Section 37 appeal would not serve justice, particularly as:

• The original petition was promptly filed after the Section 34 order

• The petitioner was willing to comply with conditions including court fee and limitation

• Multiplicity of litigation would result if conversion was denied

Quoting from R. Rajagopal @ R.R. Gopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1995 SC 264, the Court held:

"Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to throw out the petition on such a ground. Procedural rigidity must yield to justice."

Accordingly, Justice Nigam held:

"I permit the petitioner to convert this petition under Article 227 into an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and grant him three weeks' time to do so."

High Court Affirms Judicial Power to Convert Defective Petitions into Proper Legal Remedies

In permitting the conversion of the Article 227 petition into a Section 37 appeal, the Allahabad High Court reaffirmed the liberal judicial approach that prioritizes substantive adjudication over procedural fatalism. The ruling also underscores the High Court’s commitment to ensuring access to remedy, particularly in complex arbitration matters where technical missteps should not become grounds for denial of justice.

The matter has now been directed to be listed before the appropriate Bench after completion of procedural formalities within three weeks.

Date of Decision: 02/09/2025