Private arbitration and supervisory review: Article 227 is limited, and sick-company stay protection did not bar these proceedings.

A private contractual arbitrator in a hire-purchase dispute is not ordinarily amenable to supervisory review under Article 227, and interference is confined to jurisdictional error, perversity, patent illegality, or manifest injustice; the refusal to stay the arbitral proceedings therefore was not interfered with. Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not bar constitutional review, but it reinforces the limited scope of court intervention in arbitral matters. Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 did not apply because the arbitration did not fall within the statutory categories of stayed proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a revision under Article 227 was maintainable against the interlocutory order of the arbitrator rejecting the memo seeking stay; (ii) whether the refusal to stay the arbitral proceedings was liable to be interfered with under Article 227; (iii) whether Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 barred the Court's jurisdiction; and (iv) whether Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 applied to arbitral proceedings arising out of a hire-purchase agreement.

Issue (i): Whether a revision under Article 227 was maintainable against the interlocutory order of the arbitrator rejecting the memo seeking stay.

Analysis: The arbitral forum arose from a private hire-purchase agreement between commercial parties and was not a statutory tribunal or authority constituted by the State. The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is directed to courts and tribunals within the constitutional scheme, and not to a private arbitrator functioning under a contractual reference. The Court relied on the settled distinction between tribunals discharging State judicial power and private contractual arbitral mechanisms.

Conclusion: The revision under Article 227 was not maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the refusal to stay the arbitral proceedings was liable to be interfered with under Article 227.

Analysis: Interference under Article 227 is confined to jurisdictional error, perversity, patent illegality, or manifest injustice. On the facts, the arbitrator's refusal to stay the proceedings did not disclose any such ground. The petitioner had an alternate statutory remedy in the arbitral process, and no case was made out for supervisory correction at the interlocutory stage.

Conclusion: The refusal to stay the proceedings was not liable to be interfered with under Article 227.

Issue (iii): Whether Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 barred the Court's jurisdiction.

Analysis: Section 5 restricts judicial intervention in matters governed by Part I of the Act, but it does not exclude constitutional judicial review where the Constitution otherwise permits it. However, in the setting of a private arbitration and at an interlocutory stage, the provision reinforced the legislative policy against court intervention.

Conclusion: Section 5 was not a bar to invoking Article 226 or Article 227.

Issue (iv): Whether Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 applied to arbitral proceedings arising out of a hire-purchase agreement.

Analysis: Section 22 stays specified recovery and coercive proceedings against a sick company in appropriate circumstances, but the Court held that the hire-purchase arrangement was distinct, the respondent was not shown to be a party before the BIFR in the relevant manner, and the arbitration did not amount to winding up, execution, distress, a suit for money, or enforcement of security within the statutory bar. The Court treated the attempted repossession/recovery as outside the scope of Section 22.

Conclusion: Section 22 did not apply to the arbitral proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The supervisory challenge failed at the threshold, and the arbitral proceedings were held to be outside the statutory stay and outside interference under Article 227.

Ratio Decidendi: A private contractual arbitrator in a non-statutory arbitration is not ordinarily amenable to supervisory judicial review under Article 227, and Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 does not stay arbitral proceedings of this nature unless the proceeding falls within the specific categories covered by the statutory bar.

---