https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295769 Article 227 jurisdiction survives in arbitration matters, but courts must exercise extreme restraint because the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides a limited appeal structure under Section 37 and excludes further appeal. Interference is ordinarily justified only for patent lack of inherent jurisdiction, not for mere error of law or merits-based disagreement. The High Court exceeded that narrow supervisory role by re-examining the arbitral tribunal's Section 17 relief, including the contractual basis, notice scope, and interim protection, after the tribunal had already ruled on jurisdiction under Section 16. Such interference was unsustainable, and the judgment was set aside, restoring the arbitration to the Act's framework of limited court intervention. en-us Thu, 28 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Aug 2021 10:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295769 Article 227 jurisdiction survives in arbitration matters, but courts must exercise extreme restraint because the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides a limited appeal structure under Section 37 and excludes further appeal. Interference is ordinarily justified only for patent lack of inherent jurisdiction, not for mere error of law or merits-based disagreement. The High Court exceeded that narrow supervisory role by re-examining the arbitral tribunal's Section 17 relief, including the contractual basis, notice scope, and interim protection, after the tribunal had already ruled on jurisdiction under Section 16. Such interference was unsustainable, and the judgment was set aside, restoring the arbitration to the Act's framework of limited court intervention. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 28 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295769