Can a High Court Set Aside Concurrent Orders of an Arbitrator and Tribunal in Certiorari Jurisdiction? Supreme Court Explains the Scope of Interference

Case Name: Shri Prakash Narain Sharma (Dead) Through Legal Representative v. M/s Burmah Shell Co-operative Housing Society (Regd.) Through Managing Committee Member Shri P. Jindal and Others

Date of Judgment: 31 August 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 927

Bench: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar

Held: The Supreme Court held that although certiorari jurisdiction is supervisory and not appellate, the High Court may interfere where a finding of fact is unsupported by evidence, proceeds on an unfounded presumption, or ignores decisive documentary material. Such a finding is perverse and constitutes an error of law amenable to correction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The existence of concurrent findings by the Arbitrator and the Co-operative Tribunal does not insulate those findings from judicial review when the authorities have disregarded documents that would necessarily have led to the opposite conclusion.

Summary: The dispute concerned the claim of the original claimant, S.N. Sharma, to membership of the Burmah Shell Co-operative Housing Society and the consequential allotment of a plot. The Arbitrator held that the claimant continued to be a member of the Society and directed allotment of a plot to his legal heir upon payment of the land cost. This finding was affirmed by the Delhi Co-operative Tribunal through a brief order.

The Delhi High Court set aside both orders after finding that the Arbitrator and the Tribunal had failed to consider material documents demonstrating that the claimant had resigned from the Society in 1951, that his resignation had been accepted, and that his share had subsequently been transferred to another member. The record further showed that his fresh application for membership was rejected by the Managing Committee in 1952 and that his later request to deposit money for a plot was also rejected in 1979.

Affirming the High Court, the Supreme Court observed that the Arbitrator had presumed the continuation of membership despite documentary evidence directly disproving that assumption. The relevant documents, if considered, could have led to only one conclusion: the original claimant had ceased to be a member in 1951 and was never readmitted thereafter. The Tribunal compounded the error by affirming the award through a cryptic order without examining the decisive material.

The Court reiterated that a writ court cannot ordinarily reappreciate evidence or correct a merely erroneous factual decision. However, where a finding is based on no evidence, rests entirely upon conjecture, or ignores overwhelming and decisive evidence, the resulting perversity amounts to an error of law. Certiorari can therefore be issued to correct such a determination without converting the writ court into an appellate forum.

The Supreme Court also approved the High Court’s consideration of equitable circumstances. Four members had claims for allotment prior to the original claimant, and a person who had not established valid membership could not obtain preferential allotment by bypassing those senior claims. Since the claimant was never readmitted as a member, the Court found it unnecessary to determine whether any plot was actually available for allotment.

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeals and upheld the judgment of the Delhi High Court setting aside the arbitral award dated 7 October 2003 and the Delhi Co-operative Tribunal’s order dated 18 March 2004. The claim for allotment of a plot was consequently rejected.