Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/S HKRP Innovations Ltd., through its authorized representative Vinesh Soni, filed a Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Gujarat High Court. The petition challenged an interlocutory order passed by the learned Arbitrator in Arbitration Case No.11 of 2025. The Arbitrator had directed the petitioner, who was a third party to the arbitration proceedings, to participate in the evidence stage. The petitioner contended that the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to bind a third party and that the order was beyond the Arbitrator's authority. The High Court, comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray, heard the matter. The court noted that the arbitration proceedings were ongoing and that Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 mandates judicial authorities not to intervene except as provided in Part I of the Act. The court found no ground to entertain the petition under its extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction, as the Arbitration Act aims to minimize court intervention. The court further observed that the petitioner could raise all its assertions before the Arbitrator and, if prejudiced, could challenge the final arbitral award. The order under challenge was merely a direction to approach the Civil Court under Section 27(2) of the Act for assistance in taking evidence. Consequently, the petition was dismissed at the threshold.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Judicial Intervention - Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The court held that Section 5 of the Arbitration Act mandates judicial authorities not to intervene in arbitral proceedings except as provided in Part I. The petition under Article 227 challenging an interlocutory order of the arbitrator was dismissed as not maintainable, emphasizing minimal court interference. (Paras 3-4) B) Arbitration Law - Interlocutory Orders - Section 27(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The arbitrator's order directing parties to approach the Civil Court under Section 27(2) for assistance in taking evidence was upheld. The court noted that the petitioner could raise all contentions before the arbitrator and challenge the final award if aggrieved. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should entertain a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an interlocutory order passed by an arbitrator directing a third party to participate in evidence proceedings.
Final Decision
The petition was dismissed at the threshold. The court held that Section 5 of the Arbitration Act mandates minimal judicial intervention, and the petitioner could raise all contentions before the arbitrator or challenge the final award.
Law Points
- Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996 mandates minimal judicial intervention
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be used to challenge interlocutory orders of an arbitrator
- Section 27(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996 provides for court assistance in taking evidence
