https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84598 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. en-us Mon, 06 Jan 2025 08:42:25 +0530 Mon, 06 Jan 2025 08:42:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84598 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. Highlights Indian Laws Mon, 06 Jan 2025 08:42:25 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84598