Article 227 supervision in arbitration is limited to exceptional cases; refusal to condone delay was left undisturbed.

Supervisory interference under Article 227 in arbitral proceedings is confined to exceptional cases of patent perversity, bad faith, or jurisdictional error. A tribunal's discretionary refusal to condone delay for want of sufficient cause will not be disturbed merely because another view is possible. The record disclosed no non-consideration of material evidence, no findings contrary to evidence, and no impermissible inference warranting correction. The arbitral order was therefore left undisturbed, and no interference was justified.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was warranted against the arbitral order refusing to condone delay for want of sufficient cause; (ii) Whether the impugned order disclosed perversity, bad faith, or any exceptional circumstance justifying supervisory interference.

Issue (i): Whether interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was warranted against the arbitral order refusing to condone delay for want of sufficient cause.

Analysis: The scope of supervisory interference under Article 227 in arbitral matters is narrow and is to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances. A discretionary finding on whether sufficient cause exists for condonation of delay lies primarily within the arbitral tribunal's domain, and a different possible view by the supervisory court is not by itself a ground for interference.

Conclusion: No interference was warranted on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned order disclosed perversity, bad faith, or any exceptional circumstance justifying supervisory interference.

Analysis: The record did not show non-consideration of material evidence, findings contrary to evidence, or conclusions based on impermissible inferences. No circumstance suggesting bad faith or perversity of an extreme nature was found, and the arbitral order did not justify intervention under the restricted supervisory jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The impugned order did not justify interference under Article 227.

Final Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable on merits for supervisory correction and the arbitral tribunal's refusal to condone delay was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Interference under Article 227 in arbitral proceedings is confined to exceptional cases of patent perversity, bad faith, or jurisdictional error, and a discretionary finding on sufficient cause for condonation of delay will not be upset merely because another view is possible.

---