Case Note & Summary
The present appeals arise from an interim order dated 02.09.2025 and a final order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the High Court of Gauhati in CRP/120/2025. The High Court, vide its interim order, stayed a notice issued by the Arbitral Tribunal to Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, and subsequently rejected the preliminary objection raised by the Appellant regarding the maintainability of the revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The factual background involves a partnership firm, M/s Boloma Tea Company, constituted in 1948, with subsequent changes in partnership and incorporation of companies. The Appellant, an IAS officer, became a sleeping partner in 1974. A partnership deed dated 16.11.1976 contained an arbitration clause. Disputes arose, leading to arbitration proceedings. The Arbitral Tribunal issued a notice to certain respondents, which was stayed by the High Court. The Appellant challenged the maintainability of the revision petition, arguing that under Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, judicial intervention is barred except as provided under the Act. The High Court rejected this objection. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's orders. The Court held that the High Court erred in entertaining the revision petition under Article 227 against an interim order of the Arbitral Tribunal, as the Arbitration Act provides a complete mechanism for challenging such orders and Section 5 prohibits judicial intervention beyond what is specified in the Act. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal had not exceeded its jurisdiction, and the High Court's interference was unwarranted. The appeals were allowed, and the orders of the High Court were set aside.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Maintainability of Revision under Article 227 - Interim Order of Arbitral Tribunal - Section 5, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The High Court entertained a revision petition under Article 227 against an interim order of the Arbitral Tribunal staying the notice issued by the Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in entertaining the revision petition as the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides a complete mechanism for challenging arbitral orders, and Section 5 bars judicial intervention except as provided under the Act. The High Court's interference under Article 227 was not warranted as the Tribunal had not exceeded its jurisdiction. (Paras 1-2) B) Arbitration Law - Preliminary Objection on Maintainability - Rejection by High Court - Section 5, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The Appellant raised a preliminary objection that the revision petition under Article 227 was not maintainable against an interim order of the Arbitral Tribunal. The High Court rejected this objection. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's orders, and held that the revision petition was not maintainable as the Act provides for limited judicial intervention. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against an interim order passed by an Arbitral Tribunal, and whether the High Court erred in staying the arbitral proceedings and rejecting the preliminary objection regarding maintainability.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the interim order dated 02.09.2025 and the order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the High Court of Gauhati in CRP/120/2025. The Court held that the revision petition under Article 227 was not maintainable against the interim order of the Arbitral Tribunal.
Law Points
- Maintainability of revision petition under Article 227 against an interim order of an arbitral tribunal
- Scope of interference under Article 227
- Applicability of Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- Jurisdiction of High Court to entertain revision against arbitral proceedings
