https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465877 Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 should not be used to challenge arbitral orders where the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides an adequate statutory framework. A writ against a Section 11 appointment order was not maintainable because the appointment order is final under the Act and any challenge lies through the statutory route, not by treating the High Court as an appellate forum. A writ against a Section 16 order rejecting a jurisdictional objection was also not maintainable, since such objections are ordinarily raised after the award under Section 34 and interim interference is reserved for exceptional cases of patent lack of jurisdiction, bad faith, or manifest perversity. The petition was dismissed. en-us Tue, 17 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Jan 2026 15:48:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465877 Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 should not be used to challenge arbitral orders where the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides an adequate statutory framework. A writ against a Section 11 appointment order was not maintainable because the appointment order is final under the Act and any challenge lies through the statutory route, not by treating the High Court as an appellate forum. A writ against a Section 16 order rejecting a jurisdictional objection was also not maintainable, since such objections are ordinarily raised after the award under Section 34 and interim interference is reserved for exceptional cases of patent lack of jurisdiction, bad faith, or manifest perversity. The petition was dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 17 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465877