The SC held that the HC has incorrectly exercised its...

The SC held that the HC has incorrectly exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 in granting the respondent/claimant one more opportunity to cross-examine the appellant/respondent's witness, despite the Arbitral Tribunal rejecting such a prayer. The Tribunal had given full opportunity to all parties, and the respondent/claimant had already cross-examined the witness for over 12 hours. The SC observed that interference under Articles 226/227 is permissible only if the order is completely perverse, and the HC's order lacked justification in interfering with the Tribunal's directions. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.