Judicial restraint in arbitration matters limits Article 226/227 interference with deposit orders unless there is patent lack of jurisdiction.

Courts must exercise extreme circumspection before interfering under Articles 226 and 227 with orders passed in proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, because Section 5 limits judicial intervention. Such interference is justified only in exceptional cases involving patent lack of inherent jurisdiction. On the facts described, the High Court's interference with the deposit order did not meet that threshold, so the interference was held unsustainable. The order directing deposit and security was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could interfere under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution with an order concerning deposit made in proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and whether such interference was justified on the facts.

Analysis: The governing principle is that courts must act with extreme circumspection in interfering with orders passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, having regard to the limited scope of judicial intervention under Section 5 of the Act. Interference under Articles 226 and 227 is warranted only in exceptional cases of patent lack of inherent jurisdiction. The impugned interference with the deposit order did not satisfy that threshold.

Conclusion: The High Court's order was not sustainable and was set aside, while the order directing deposit and security was restored.

---