Supervisory review of arbitral orders remains exceptional, and jurisdictional objections under Section 16 must be decided before the final award.

Arbitral tribunals are amenable to supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, but interference in arbitration matters is confined to exceptional cases of patent lack of inherent jurisdiction or perversity. On the Section 16 objection, the tribunal must decide its own jurisdictional plea before the final award, and the issue cannot be deferred until the award stage, even though the precise timing may depend on the facts and the nature of evidence. The impugned orders were not interfered with at that stage, but the tribunal was directed to determine the jurisdictional objection expeditiously before delivering the final award.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition under Article 227 was maintainable to challenge orders of the arbitral tribunal; (ii) whether the arbitral tribunal could defer decision on the Section 16 jurisdictional objection until the final award.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition under Article 227 was maintainable to challenge orders of the arbitral tribunal.

Analysis: Arbitral tribunals are tribunals amenable to the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227. However, in matters arising from arbitration, interference is confined to exceptional cases. The statutory scheme under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 favours minimal judicial intervention, and interference is warranted only where the impugned order is perverse and patently lacking in inherent jurisdiction, or where exceptional circumstances justify such exercise of power.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable in principle, but the High Court would interfere only within the narrow and exceptional limits recognised in arbitration matters.

Issue (ii): Whether the arbitral tribunal could defer decision on the Section 16 jurisdictional objection until the final award.

Analysis: Section 16 embodies the tribunal's competence to rule on its own jurisdiction and requires a decision on a plea of jurisdiction. The objection should ordinarily be determined at the earliest, and though the exact stage may depend on the facts, it cannot be postponed beyond the making of the final award. Where the issue involves admitted documents, a preliminary issue, limited evidence, or fuller evidence, the tribunal must still decide the jurisdictional plea first before proceeding to award. A direction that the objection would be dealt with only while passing the award was therefore not fully consistent with the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The tribunal was required to adjudicate the Section 16 objection before the final award and could not defer it to the stage of passing the award.

Final Conclusion: No interference was warranted with the impugned arbitral orders at this stage, but the tribunal was directed to decide the jurisdictional objection before delivering the final award and to proceed expeditiously.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court may interfere with arbitral orders only in exceptional cases of patent lack of inherent jurisdiction, and a jurisdictional plea under Section 16 must be decided before the final award, though the precise stage of decision may vary with the facts of the case.

---