Article 227 interference with arbitral jurisdictional rulings is limited to rare cases of patent lack of inherent jurisdiction.

Interference under Article 227 with an arbitral order rejecting a Section 16 challenge is confined to rare cases where the order is so perverse that it s a patent lack of inherent jurisdiction. Mere dissatisfaction with the arbitral ruling, or an attempt to reopen the Section 16 decision through supervisory review, does not justify intervention. The exception for writ interference applies only when the jurisdictional defect is manifest on the face of the order. On the facts stated, no patent lack of inherent jurisdiction was found, so interference was not warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference under Article 227 was warranted against the order of the Arbitral Tribunal rejecting the Section 16 challenge.

Analysis: Interference in writ jurisdiction against an arbitral order is permissible only in the rarest cases where the order is so perverse that it discloses a patent lack of inherent jurisdiction. Mere dissatisfaction with the arbitral ruling, or an attempt to reopen the Section 16 decision through Article 227, does not justify judicial interference. The exception recognised for supervisory review is confined to cases where the lack of jurisdiction is manifest on the face of the order.

Conclusion: No patent lack of inherent jurisdiction was found and interference under Article 227 was not warranted.

---