Writ interference in arbitration is exceptional; challenges to appointment and jurisdictional orders must follow statutory remedies.

Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 should not be used to challenge arbitral orders where the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides an adequate statutory framework. A writ against a Section 11 appointment order was not maintainable because the appointment order is final under the Act and any challenge lies through the statutory route, not by treating the High Court as an appellate forum. A writ against a Section 16 order rejecting a jurisdictional objection was also not maintainable, since such objections are ordinarily raised after the award under Section 34 and interim interference is reserved for exceptional cases of patent lack of jurisdiction, bad faith, or manifest perversity. The petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India was maintainable to challenge an order appointing an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. (ii) Whether a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India was maintainable to challenge an interlocutory order under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 rejecting the objection to the arbitrator's jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India was maintainable to challenge an order appointing an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: The scheme of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 limits judicial intervention in arbitral matters. An order passed under Section 11 is a judicial order and the statute provides finality to such appointment orders. The available challenge to such an order lies before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, not by way of a writ petition before the same High Court. The petitioner was not left without a remedy, and the alleged fraud and factual disputes did not justify conversion of writ jurisdiction into an appellate forum against the appointment order.

Conclusion: The writ challenge to the Section 11 appointment order was held not maintainable and was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India was maintainable to challenge an interlocutory order under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 rejecting the objection to the arbitrator's jurisdiction.

Analysis: A challenge to an order under Section 16 rejecting a jurisdictional objection ordinarily lies after the award, in proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the statute contemplates limited interference during the arbitral process. Writ intervention is reserved for exceptionally rare situations such as patent lack of inherent jurisdiction, clear bad faith, or complete perversity. Here, the arbitrator had been validly appointed under Section 11, the petitioner had participated in the proceedings, and the objection based on fraud and voidness involved disputed facts that could not justify writ intervention. The order was not shown to be perverse on its face.

Conclusion: The writ challenge to the Section 16 order was held not maintainable and was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The petition was dismissed because the arbitration regime provided adequate statutory remedies and the case did not fall within the narrow exceptions permitting writ interference in arbitral proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 should not be used to interfere with arbitral orders during the pendency of arbitration except in exceptional rarity, such as patent want of jurisdiction, demonstrable bad faith, or manifest perversity; otherwise the party must pursue the remedies provided by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

---