https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465898 Article 227 supervision is not ordinarily available to challenge interlocutory arbitral orders because the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 confines court interference to the limited appeal regime under Section 37 and, for other orders, to a challenge under Section 34 after the final award. Applying the restraint principles in SBP and Bhaven Construction, High Courts may interfere only in rare and exceptional cases, such as where a party would otherwise be left remediless or where clear bad faith is shown. On that reasoning, the impugned arbitral order fell outside Section 37 and could be questioned, if at all, only at the Section 34 stage; the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable. en-us Mon, 22 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Jan 2026 13:24:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465898 Article 227 supervision is not ordinarily available to challenge interlocutory arbitral orders because the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 confines court interference to the limited appeal regime under Section 37 and, for other orders, to a challenge under Section 34 after the final award. Applying the restraint principles in SBP and Bhaven Construction, High Courts may interfere only in rare and exceptional cases, such as where a party would otherwise be left remediless or where clear bad faith is shown. On that reasoning, the impugned arbitral order fell outside Section 37 and could be questioned, if at all, only at the Section 34 stage; the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 22 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465898