Can the High Court Entertain an Article 227 Challenge Against an Arbitral Tribunal’s Order Rejecting a Jurisdictional Objection?

Case Name: Manash Kamal Bezboruah v. M/s Bokahola Tea Company Private Limited & Ors.

Date of Judgment: 14 July 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 701; Civil Appeal Nos. ___ of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 7233–7234 of 2026)

Bench: Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Vijay Bishnoi

Held: The Supreme Court held that the High Court ought not to entertain a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an Arbitral Tribunal’s order rejecting a jurisdictional objection under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, except in cases of a patent lack of inherent jurisdiction. Reiterating the principle of minimal judicial intervention in arbitral proceedings, the Court observed that challenges to an order under Section 16 ordinarily lie only under Section 34 after the final arbitral award. It further clarified that determining whether a non-signatory is a “veritable party” to an arbitration agreement is a matter falling within the Arbitral Tribunal’s competence under the doctrine of kompetenz-kompetenz, and the High Court should not interfere at the interlocutory stage in the absence of an obvious jurisdictional defect.

Summary: The dispute arose from a long-standing conflict among members of the Bezboruah family concerning the affairs of a tea partnership and related companies. After civil proceedings remained pending for several years, the Supreme Court, with the consent of the parties, referred the disputes to arbitration and appointed a sole arbitrator. During the arbitral proceedings, three company respondents, who were non-signatories to the partnership deed containing the arbitration clause, sought deletion of their names from the proceedings on the ground that they were not bound by the arbitration agreement. Treating the objection as one under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Arbitral Tribunal rejected their plea and held that the issue of non-signatory status could be examined during the arbitration.

The non-signatory respondents challenged the Tribunal’s order before the Gauhati High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court entertained the petition, stayed the notices issued to them by the Tribunal and held that it could exercise supervisory jurisdiction where the Tribunal’s order allegedly suffered from a patent lack of inherent jurisdiction. The appellant questioned these orders before the Supreme Court, contending that such interference defeated the legislative policy of minimal judicial intervention embodied in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and ignored the statutory remedy available under Section 34 after the arbitral award.

Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that although the High Court’s power under Article 227 forms part of the constitutional framework, it must be exercised with extreme restraint in arbitration matters. Relying on SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd., Deep Industries Ltd. v. ONGC, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. v. Emta Coal Ltd., Cox and Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd., and its recent decision in Tarini Prasad Mohanty, the Court held that a Section 16 determination is ordinarily subject to challenge only after the final award under Section 34. It further observed that deciding whether a non-signatory is bound by an arbitration agreement involves complex factual and legal issues that are best left to the Arbitral Tribunal. Since the High Court failed to record any prima facie finding of a patent lack of inherent jurisdiction before entertaining the petition, its interference was found to be contrary to the statutory scheme of the Arbitration Act.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Gauhati High Court’s interim order dated 2 September 2025 and final order dated 28 January 2026, and dismissed the revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. It directed that the Arbitral Tribunal should independently determine the jurisdictional objections concerning the non-signatory respondents without being influenced by any observations made by the Court and proceed to conclude the arbitration expeditiously in accordance with law.