https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305195 Interference under Article 227 with an arbitral order rejecting a Section 16 challenge is confined to rare cases where the order is so perverse that it s a patent lack of inherent jurisdiction. Mere dissatisfaction with the arbitral ruling, or an attempt to reopen the Section 16 decision through supervisory review, does not justify intervention. The exception for writ interference applies only when the jurisdictional defect is manifest on the face of the order. On the facts stated, no patent lack of inherent jurisdiction was found, so interference was not warranted. en-us Fri, 18 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Nov 2022 09:01:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305195 Interference under Article 227 with an arbitral order rejecting a Section 16 challenge is confined to rare cases where the order is so perverse that it s a patent lack of inherent jurisdiction. Mere dissatisfaction with the arbitral ruling, or an attempt to reopen the Section 16 decision through supervisory review, does not justify intervention. The exception for writ interference applies only when the jurisdictional defect is manifest on the face of the order. On the facts stated, no patent lack of inherent jurisdiction was found, so interference was not warranted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 18 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305195