Research and Articles
![](/Content/images/arrow-3-right-red.png)
Hotline
![](/Content/images/arrow-3-right-red.png)
- Capital Markets Hotline
- Companies Act Series
- Climate Change Related Legal Issues
- Competition Law Hotline
- Corpsec Hotline
- Court Corner
- Cross Examination
- Deal Destination
- Debt Funding in India Series
- Dispute Resolution Hotline
- Education Sector Hotline
- FEMA Hotline
- Financial Service Update
- Food & Beverages Hotline
- Funds Hotline
- Gaming Law Wrap
- GIFT City Express
- Green Hotline
- HR Law Hotline
- iCe Hotline
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Hotline
- International Trade Hotlines
- Investment Funds: Monthly Digest
- IP Hotline
- IP Lab
- Legal Update
- Lit Corner
- M&A Disputes Series
- M&A Hotline
- M&A Interactive
- Media Hotline
- New Publication
- Other Hotline
- Pharma & Healthcare Update
- Press Release
- Private Client Wrap
- Private Debt Hotline
- Private Equity Corner
- Real Estate Update
- Realty Check
- Regulatory Digest
- Regulatory Hotline
- Renewable Corner
- SEZ Hotline
- Social Sector Hotline
- Tax Hotline
- Technology & Tax Series
- Technology Law Analysis
- Telecom Hotline
- The Startups Series
- White Collar and Investigations Practice
- Yes, Governance Matters.
- Japan Desk ジャパンデスク
Dispute Resolution Hotline
February 11, 2025Limits under Articles 226 and 227: Supreme Court’s Dictum on High Courts’ Jurisdiction over Arbitral Orders
This article was first published in www.lexology.com (February, 06, 2025).
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“A&C Act”) does not specify remedies to parties before courts, against procedural orders of the arbitral tribunal. In certain cases, aggrieved parties have invoked High Courts’ writ and supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. However, this has often led to a debate between arbitral autonomy and judicial intervention.
Recently, the Supreme Court of India, in Serosoft Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Dexter Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd.,[i] ruled on the applicable standard for interference by High Courts in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. While allowing the appeal against the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court held that High Courts may interfere with an order of an arbitral tribunal only if such an order is ex-facie perverse.
Please click here for our detailed article.
Authors
- Shruti Dhonde, Shweta Sahu and Arjun Gupta
You can direct your queries or comments to the relevant member.