https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402585 The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 operates as a complete code with minimal judicial intervention, so writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 should not ordinarily be used to interrupt arbitral proceedings or a Section 16 ruling. Interference is confined to exceptional cases, such as clear absence of remedy or demonstrable bad faith, and no such circumstance was shown here. The dispute over whether the contract fell under the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 depended on contractual interpretation and evidence, making it unsuitable for writ adjudication at that stage. The jurisdictional objection was therefore left to be pursued through the statutory challenge mechanism under the 1996 Act. en-us Wed, 06 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 May 2026 16:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402585 The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 operates as a complete code with minimal judicial intervention, so writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 should not ordinarily be used to interrupt arbitral proceedings or a Section 16 ruling. Interference is confined to exceptional cases, such as clear absence of remedy or demonstrable bad faith, and no such circumstance was shown here. The dispute over whether the contract fell under the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 depended on contractual interpretation and evidence, making it unsuitable for writ adjudication at that stage. The jurisdictional objection was therefore left to be pursued through the statutory challenge mechanism under the 1996 Act. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 06 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402585