Minimal judicial intervention in arbitration bars routine Article 227 challenges to a tribunal's jurisdiction ruling.

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a complete code, and Section 5 requires minimal judicial intervention in matters governed by it. Section 16 empowers the arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction, so a party challenging rejection of a non-arbitrability or jurisdiction plea must ordinarily await the final award and seek recourse under Section 34. Interference under Articles 226 and 227 is confined to exceptional cases, such as patent lack of jurisdiction or clear bad faith. On the stated facts, the tribunal had given reasons for holding the dispute arbitrable, and supervisory interference was unwarranted; the petition was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was maintainable to challenge the order of the Arbitral Tribunal rejecting the plea of non-arbitrability and jurisdiction.

Analysis: The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a complete code, and Section 5 embodies the principle of minimal judicial intervention in matters governed by the Act. Section 16 confers on the arbitral tribunal the power to rule on its own jurisdiction, and where such a plea is rejected, the aggrieved party is ordinarily required to await the final award and take recourse under Section 34. Interference under Articles 226 and 227 is reserved for exceptional cases, such as a clear case of bad faith or a patent lack of jurisdiction. On the facts, the arbitral tribunal had given reasons for holding the dispute arbitrable and there was no perversity warranting supervisory interference.

Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable and no interference was called for with the arbitral tribunal's order.

Ratio Decidendi: Supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 cannot ordinarily be used to interrupt arbitral proceedings or to challenge an order under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, except in exceptional cases involving patent lack of jurisdiction or similar extraordinary circumstances.

---