Latest News
Striking a Balance: Article 227 and the Dilemma of Arbitral Tribunal Oversight
Striking a Balance: Article 227 and the Dilemma of Arbitral Tribunal Oversight
Introduction:
India finds itself embroiled in a high-stakes corporate battle between e-commerce giant Amazon and retail behemoth Future Group, unfolding across various legal fronts, including the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC). The recent turn of events, with the Delhi High Court's Division Bench ordering an interim stay on SIAC arbitration proceedings, sheds light on the complex issue of the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution over arbitral tribunal orders.
Amazon: Future Dispute Unveiled:
In December 2021, the Future Group approached a single judge of the Delhi High Court, challenging a procedural order by the SIAC arbitral tribunal. The tribunal's decision to continue with scheduled hearings before addressing the Future Group's termination application triggered a legal battle. The Single Judge, however, refused relief, stating that Article 227 wasn't applicable to the case management orders of arbitral tribunals. The Future Group appealed to the Division Bench, leading to a surprising interim stay on the SIAC arbitration.
Article 227 and Its Ambit in Arbitration:
Article 227 grants the High Courts the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals within their jurisdiction. Historically, this supervisory jurisdiction was intended for tribunals created by statute or exercising sovereign functions. However, recent judicial interpretations have attempted to extend this authority to arbitral tribunals, creating a legal conundrum.
Supreme Court's Ambivalence:
The Supreme Court's landmark judgment in SBP and Co. v. Patel Engineering and Anr. established that high courts cannot exercise Article 227 jurisdiction over arbitral tribunal orders. However, subsequent decisions, notably SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited v. Tuff Drilling Private Limited, created ambiguity by allowing challenges under Article 227 against specific arbitral tribunal orders. The Supreme Court, in M/S Deep Industries v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and Anr., attempted to strike a balance, acknowledging Article 227's applicability to arbitration-related court proceedings but avoiding a clear stance on direct oversight of arbitral tribunal orders.
Why Article 227 Should Not Extend to Arbitral Tribunals:
The reasoning behind extending Article 227 jurisdiction to arbitral tribunals, as seen in SREI Infrastructure, is flawed. Arbitral tribunals, while supported by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, remain private entities, not bestowed with the state's power of justice dispensation. This approach undermines the legislative policy of minimal judicial intervention in arbitration, as reflected in Sections 5 and 37 of the Act.
Challenges and Consequences:
Allowing challenges under Article 227 against arbitral tribunal orders risks derailing the arbitration process and contravenes the legislative objective of time-sensitive dispute resolution. The recent Division Bench's order in the Amazon-Future dispute illustrates how this extended jurisdiction can potentially disrupt and delay arbitration proceedings, contrary to the Act's intent.
Conclusion: Striking a Prudent Balance:
In the evolving landscape of India's corporate legal battles, finding a balance between the High Courts' supervisory jurisdiction and the sanctity of arbitral tribunal autonomy is crucial. While the Supreme Court has attempted to restrict Article 227 jurisdiction, there remains a need for a definitive stance to prevent its misuse and uphold the efficiency of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism.
- Article 227 grants High Courts the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals within their jurisdiction.
- High Courts cannot exercise Article 227 jurisdiction over arbitral tribunal orders.
- Arbitral tribunals, while supported by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, remain private entities, not bestowed with the state's power of justice dispensation.
