High Court's Interference Under Article 226/227 Permissible Only If Arbitral Tribunal's Order Is Patently Perverse : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today criticized the High Court's intervention under its Writ Jurisdiction in the Arbitral Proceedings, where it had directed the Arbitral Tribunal to grant additional time for one party to cross-examine another, despite the Tribunal already having provided ample time for cross-examination.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra observed that the High Court can interfere with the impugned order under its Writ Jurisdiction only in exceptional circumstances when the impugned order suffers from perversity.

“It is evident from the above that even as per the quote hereinabove interference under Article 226/227 is 'permissible only if the order is completely perverse i.e. that the perversity must stare in the face.”, the court said.

Observing that the High Court failed to point out any perversity in the tribunal's order, the judgment authored by Justice Narasimha deprecated the practice of interfering with the arbitral process when full opportunity was granted to the parties to present their case in the proceedings governed under Section 18 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“1996 Act”).

“We looked into the other parts to see if the High Court has in fact found any perversity in the decision of the Tribunal. We found none. The High Court has not bothered to indicate under what circumstances the order passed by the Tribunal is perverse. All that the High Court has said is that cross-examination is one of the most valuable and effective means of discovering the truth. This is a normative statement, and nobody disputes the said principle. The only enquiry required was whether there is denial of opportunity for an effective cross examination of the witness. There is absolutely no discretion about this aspect of the matter, except to say that in the facts and circumstances of the case and as an exceptional circumstance as well, the request of the respondent/claimant is excessive.”

“Having considered the matter in detail, we find no justification in the order passed by the High Court in interfering with the directions of the Arbitral Tribunal holding that full and sufficient opportunity to cross-examine RW-1 has already been given and no further extension of time is warranted. For the reasons stated, we allow the appeals and set aside the orders passed by the High Court in CM(M) 3711/2004 and CM Appl. 63047/2024 dated 25.10.2024.”, the court held.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) M/S. Plr Chambers And Co., AOR Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv. (V.C.) Mr. Suhaan Mukerji, Adv. Mr. Harsh Gursahani, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sayandeep Pahari, Adv. Mr. Tanmay Sinha, Adv. Ms. Jasleen Virk, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. M.a.niyazi, Adv. Mr. Advait Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Dawneesh Shaktivats, AOR Mr. Tamjeed Ahmad, Adv. Ms. Mrinal, Adv. Mr. F.a.khan, Adv. Ms. Anamika Ghai Niyazi, Adv. Ms. Kirti Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Nehmat Sethi, Adv. Mr. Arqam Ali, Adv.

Case Title: SEROSOFT SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. VERSUS DEXTER CAPITAL ADVISORS PVT. LTD.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 14

Click here to read/download the judgment