Article 227 interference with interlocutory arbitral orders is barred absent exceptional circumstances or jurisdictional excess.

Interlocutory arbitral orders are ordinarily not open to interference under Article 227 where the Arbitration and Conciliation Act provides limited appellate review under Section 37 and post-award challenge under Section 34. A challenge to an interim order may be raised against the final award, including on the ground that the award travels beyond the terms of reference. An order refusing termination of proceedings under Section 32(2)(c) merely keeps the arbitration alive, and an order permitting amendment of the claim under Section 23(3) is likewise interlocutory and does not decide the merits. In the absence of exceptional circumstances, bad faith, or jurisdictional excess, constitutional interference is unwarranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India were maintainable against interlocutory arbitral orders refusing termination of the proceedings under Section 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and allowing amendment of the claim under Section 23(3) of that Act.

Analysis: Interlocutory orders passed in arbitral proceedings are ordinarily not amenable to interference under Article 227. The statutory scheme provides limited appellate intervention under Section 37 and post-award challenge under Section 34, including a challenge that an award deals with matters beyond the terms of reference. A party is not rendered remediless merely because no immediate appeal lies against an interim order if the grievance can be raised against the final award. The refusal to terminate proceedings under Section 32(2)(c) kept the arbitration alive, and the order allowing the addendum was likewise interlocutory and did not determine the merits. No exceptional circumstance, want of good faith, or jurisdictional usurpation was shown warranting constitutional interference.

Conclusion: The petitions were not maintainable under Article 227, and no interference with the impugned arbitral orders was warranted.

---