Alternative statutory remedy bars writ review of an arbitral tribunal's refusal of interim relief under the Arbitration Act.

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 operates as a self-contained code for interim relief before an arbitral tribunal. An order refusing interim relief under section 17 is appealable under section 37, so the writ jurisdiction under article 226 should not be invoked before that statutory remedy is exhausted. The Delhi High Court therefore treated the alternative appellate remedy as an effective bar to the writ petition, and the challenge to the arbitral order failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable when the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal against the arbitral order refusing to suspend the arbitration proceedings.

Analysis: The impugned order concerned refusal of interim relief by the arbitral tribunal. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was treated as a self-contained code, and any application for interim relief before the tribunal was to be understood as falling within section 17 of that Act. An appeal lay under section 37 against an order granting or refusing an interim measure under section 17. In these circumstances, the writ jurisdiction under article 226 was not to be invoked before exhausting the available appellate remedy.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in view of the alternative remedy of appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the challenge to the arbitral order failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides an appellate remedy against an arbitral order refusing interim relief, writ jurisdiction should not be exercised before that statutory remedy is exhausted.

---