Arbitration Can’t Be Interrupted Midway: P&H High Court Declines to Interfere with Procedural Order, Imposes Costs
Case Name: Vishal Rai Gupta & Ors. v. Ramesh Chander Verma & Anr.
Date of Judgment: 11 March 2026
Citation: CR-2301-2026
Bench: Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Held: The High Court held that interference under Article 227 of the Constitution against procedural orders passed by an arbitral tribunal is impermissible except in cases of patent lack of jurisdiction, bad faith, or exceptional rarity. The arbitral process must remain insulated from judicial interference in view of Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Summary: The petitioners filed a civil revision petition challenging an order of the learned Sole Arbitrator refusing to direct the respondent to provide specimen signatures and handwriting for comparison with disputed documents.
The dispute arose out of a partnership deed containing an arbitration clause, pursuant to which arbitral proceedings had already commenced following appointment of an arbitrator by the High Court. The impugned order was passed at the stage of petitioners’ evidence, where their application for obtaining specimen signatures was rejected.
The petitioners argued that denial of such direction caused prejudice and deprived them of a fair opportunity to prove their case. They further contended that no alternate remedy was available and therefore invoked Article 227 jurisdiction.
The High Court, however, examined the statutory scheme of the Arbitration Act and reiterated the principle of minimal judicial interference. It relied on leading precedents to emphasize that arbitral proceedings cannot be disrupted by challenges to interlocutory or procedural orders.
It was noted that the arbitral tribunal had already observed that sufficient admitted signatures were available on record and the petitioners were free to rely on them. The Court found that the impugned order was purely procedural and did not warrant interference.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the case did not fall within any of the recognized exceptions permitting interference under Article 227. It observed that neither jurisdictional error, nor bad faith, nor exceptional circumstances were made out. The Court reaffirmed that parties must ordinarily await the final arbitral award and avail remedies under Sections 34 or 37 of the Act, rather than challenge interim orders.
The Court further held that entertaining such petitions would defeat the legislative intent of expeditious dispute resolution through arbitration. Consequently, the petition was dismissed with costs of ₹10,000, to be deposited with the High Court Legal Services Committee.