Supervisory jurisdiction in arbitration cannot reopen a reasoned order absent perversity when sufficient cross-examination was already given.

Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 should not be used to disturb a reasoned arbitral order absent demonstrable perversity, particularly where the party had already been given sufficient opportunity to cross-examine. The arbitral record showed cross-examination on multiple dates for extended periods, and the Tribunal found that further time was unwarranted. Although Section 18 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 requires equal treatment and full opportunity to present the case, judicial interference in arbitral proceedings must remain restrained and exceptional. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's refusal to grant further time, and set aside the High Court's direction granting an additional opportunity.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to grant a further opportunity to cross-examine the witness despite the Arbitral Tribunal rejecting that request; and whether the Tribunal had already afforded sufficient opportunity for cross-examination so as to make further judicial interference unwarranted.

Analysis: The arbitral record showed that the witness was cross-examined on multiple dates for substantial duration, including extended sessions, and the Tribunal found that sufficient opportunity had already been given. The governing framework under Section 18 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 requires equal treatment and full opportunity to present the case, but judicial interference in arbitral proceedings must remain restrained and is justified only in exceptional cases of clear perversity. The High Court did not identify any perversity in the Tribunal's order and interfered only on the general premise that cross-examination is an important tool for discovering truth.

Conclusion: The High Court ought not to have interfered. The Tribunal's refusal to grant any further time for cross-examination was upheld and the direction granting additional opportunity was set aside.

Final Conclusion: Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be used to disturb a reasoned arbitral order in the absence of demonstrable perversity, particularly where adequate opportunity has already been afforded in the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Interference under Article 227 in arbitral proceedings is permissible only in exceptional cases where the impugned order is clearly perverse, and a party that has already been given full and sufficient opportunity cannot demand further judicially mandated indulgence.

---