Summary
The Court set aside the High Court’s interference with an arbitrator’s rejection of a jurisdictional objection. Constitutional supervision survives the Arbitration Act but requires exceptional circumstances. The respondent had participated, unsuccessfully invoked Section 16 and already challenged the eventual award under Section 34; it could pursue its jurisdictional objections there.
Issues
- When may constitutional supervisory jurisdiction be exercised during arbitration despite the statutory challenge mechanism?
- Whether the respondent’s jurisdictional objection justified immediate writ interference.
Provisions considered
- Section 5, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996Applied the legislative restriction on judicial intervention while recognising the constitutional powers of the High Court. (¶¶ 11, 15–19)
Held
- Articles 226 and 227 remain available, but intervention in the arbitral process calls for exceptional rarity, such as a party being left remediless under the statute or clear bad faith. The statutory scheme and its timelines require restraint. (¶ 15–21)
- The respondent participated in arbitration and its Section 16 objection was rejected. That objection could be raised after the award under Section 34; an award had already been passed and a Section 34 challenge was pending. No exceptional circumstance warranted the High Court’s intervention. (¶¶ 19–22, 25–26)
- Whether the manufacture-and-supply arrangement attracted the Gujarat public-works tribunal legislation involved contractual interpretation and disputed facts. The respondent remained free to advance legally permissible jurisdictional objections in the pending Section 34 proceedings. (¶ 23–26)
Result
Appeal allowed; impugned High Court order set aside, with liberty to raise legally permissible jurisdictional objections in the pending Section 34 proceedings; no costs.