36 WP-4000-26.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4000 OF 2026 Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. ..Petitioner Versus M/s. Nath Resorts Pvt. Ltd. & anr. …Respondents Mr. Kaustubh Patil, a/w Ms. Mansi Shah, for the Petitioner. Mr. Deelip Patil Bankar, a/w Ms. Pooja Deelip Patil, for Respondent No.2. CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 16th SEPTEMBER 2026 ORDER :- 1. Heard Mr. Kaustubh Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Deelip Bankar, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal recalling an earlier order dated 05th January, 2026 to the extent it directed that, if the claimant committed default in payment of the fees of the Arbitral Tribunal on or before 11th February, 2026, the statement of claim should stand dismissed without further reference to the Arbitral Tribunal and that no extension of time to pay the fees of the SAINATH, PA 1/5 SAINATH SANJAY BODKHE Digitally signed by SAINATH SANJAY BODKHE Date: 2026.09.18 19:17:06 +0530 36 WP-4000-26.DOC Arbitral Tribunal shall be granted to either party, and the subsequent orders whereby the Arbitral Tribunal declined to make any clarification as regards the payment of fees and the seat of arbitration. 3. The Arbitral Tribunal was of the view that, the application seeking extension of time was filed before the expiry of the time stipulated by the Arbitral Tribunal for payment of fees, and since there was delay of about 6 days only in the deposit of the Arbitral Tribunal fees, the order dated 05th January, 2026, being a procedural order, the Tribunal was empowered to review and recall the same. 4. Mr. Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, by an order dated 27th April, 2026, on an application preferred by the claimant seeking extension of time to deposit the fees of the Arbitral Tribunal, the Arbitral Tribunal had unilaterally extended the time to pay the fees, despite the peremptory and self-operative order dated 05th January, 2026. On account of the failure of the claimant to deposit the fees with the Arbitral Tribunal, the statement of claim stood dismissed and the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal was automatically terminated. Having become functus officio, the Arbitral Tribunal SAINATH, PA 2/5 36 WP-4000-26.DOC could not have extended the time to deposit the fees and resumed arbitral proceedings. 5. The submissions canvassed by Mr. Patil, do not deserve countenance. Indeed, the order dated 05th January, 2026 directing the parties to deposit the Arbitral Tribunal’s fees provided the consequences that would entail failure to deposit the fees was processual. At best, the termination of the proceedings was referable to the provisions contained in Section 32(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (“Act, 1996”). Such a peremptory order especially in the matter of payment of fees of the Arbitral Tribunal, can only be said to be procedural. It can hardly be urged that, the Arbitral Tribunal is denuded of the power to recall and review the processual order. By no stretch of imagination, the impugned order dated 27th April, 2026, assumes the character of substantive review. 6. It is imperative to note, the Arbitral Tribunal has recorded that the claimant has deposited the fees with the Arbitral Tribunal with a delay of 6 days only and, in the circumstances of the case, the Arbitral Tribunal was persuaded to condone the delay upon compliance with the direction to deposit the fees. Moreover, by the orders passed by the Court, the mandate of the SAINATH, PA 3/5 36 WP-4000-26.DOC Arbitral Tribunal has been extended. A challenge to such order cannot be entertained in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. 7. The impugned order dated 27th April, 2026, cannot be said to be legally infirm, much less, afflicted with perversity that stares in the face. Nor can the petitioner be said to have been rendered remediless so as to warrant exercise of writ jurisdiction during the currency of arbitral proceedings, which can only be resorted to as a matter of rarity. 8. In the case of Harshbir Singh Pannu & anr. Vs. Jaswinder Singh1, on which reliance was placed by the Arbitral Tribunal, the Supreme Court has enunciated that, if a favourable order is passed by the Arbitral Tribunal for recommencing arbitration proceedings, the only option available to a party aggrieved therefrom, would be to participate in the proceedings and thereafter, challenge the final award under Section 34 of the Act, 1996. 9. The challenge to the subsequent order dated 15th June, 2026 (Exh. C) as amended by the order of even date dated 15th June, 2026 (Exh. D) stands on an even weaker foundation. The aspect of the dispute as to seat of arbitration sought to be raised in an indirect manner, is subjudice before the High Court of 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2742 SAINATH, PA 4/5 36 WP-4000-26.DOC Bombay at Aurangabad Bench as the petitioner has purportedly assailed an order passed by the Court at Aurangabad to extend the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal. The Arbitral Tribunal was, thus, justified in holding that, it did not owe any clarification to the parties either with regard to the payment of fees or the seat of arbitration, having already passed the orders in that regard. 10. This Court gains an impression that, applications and proceedings are being filed as a part of litigative strategy to delay the disposal of the arbitral proceedings. 11. Therefore, this Writ Petition, being devoid of substance, stands dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority, Bombay within a period of four weeks from today. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] SAINATH, PA 5/5