{"id":6871,"date":"2025-08-02T05:06:00","date_gmt":"2025-08-02T05:06:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=6871"},"modified":"2025-08-02T05:14:27","modified_gmt":"2025-08-02T05:14:27","slug":"analysis-of-provisions-related-to-permitted-judicial-intervention-in-domestic-arbitration","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/analysis-of-provisions-related-to-permitted-judicial-intervention-in-domestic-arbitration\/","title":{"rendered":"Analysis of Provisions related to permitted Judicial Intervention in Domestic Arbitration"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Today\u2019s world is experiencing rapid growth in extraterritorial trade, leading to inevitable disputes among participating parties. Due to the value of time, parties often prefer resolving differences outside traditional courtrooms. With millions of pending cases, the courts are overburdened. Additionally, to preserve privacy and commercial relations, court intervention is generally avoided. Arbitration is the most recognized and practiced method of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/analysis-of-provisions-related-to-permitted-judicial-intervention-in-domestic-arbitration\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/analysis-of-provisions-related-to-permitted-judicial-intervention-in-domestic-arbitration\/#Research_Objectives\" >Research Objectives<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/analysis-of-provisions-related-to-permitted-judicial-intervention-in-domestic-arbitration\/#Research_Questions\" >Research Questions<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/analysis-of-provisions-related-to-permitted-judicial-intervention-in-domestic-arbitration\/#Research_Hypothesis\" >Research Hypothesis<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/analysis-of-provisions-related-to-permitted-judicial-intervention-in-domestic-arbitration\/#Literature_Review\" >Literature Review<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/analysis-of-provisions-related-to-permitted-judicial-intervention-in-domestic-arbitration\/#Research_Methodology\" >Research Methodology<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/analysis-of-provisions-related-to-permitted-judicial-intervention-in-domestic-arbitration\/#Analysis\" >Analysis<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/analysis-of-provisions-related-to-permitted-judicial-intervention-in-domestic-arbitration\/#Section_5_of_the_Act\" >Section 5 of the Act<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/analysis-of-provisions-related-to-permitted-judicial-intervention-in-domestic-arbitration\/#Judicial_Intervention_Before_Arbitration_Proceedings\" >Judicial Intervention Before Arbitration Proceedings<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/analysis-of-provisions-related-to-permitted-judicial-intervention-in-domestic-arbitration\/#Analysis_of_Judicial_Authority\" >Analysis of Judicial Authority<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/analysis-of-provisions-related-to-permitted-judicial-intervention-in-domestic-arbitration\/#Judicial_Intervention_During_Proceedings\" >Judicial Intervention During Proceedings<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/analysis-of-provisions-related-to-permitted-judicial-intervention-in-domestic-arbitration\/#Analysis_of_Judicial_Authority-2\" >Analysis of Judicial Authority<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/analysis-of-provisions-related-to-permitted-judicial-intervention-in-domestic-arbitration\/#Judicial_Intervention_in_Appealable_Orders\" >Judicial Intervention in Appealable Orders<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/analysis-of-provisions-related-to-permitted-judicial-intervention-in-domestic-arbitration\/#Appeals_against_Court_Rulings\" >Appeals against Court Rulings<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/analysis-of-provisions-related-to-permitted-judicial-intervention-in-domestic-arbitration\/#Appeals_against_Arbitral_Tribunal_Rulings\" >Appeals against Arbitral Tribunal Rulings<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/analysis-of-provisions-related-to-permitted-judicial-intervention-in-domestic-arbitration\/#Importance_of_Doctrine_of_Separability\" >Importance of Doctrine of Separability<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-17\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/analysis-of-provisions-related-to-permitted-judicial-intervention-in-domestic-arbitration\/#Is_Judicial_Intervention_Justified\" >Is Judicial Intervention Justified?<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-18\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/analysis-of-provisions-related-to-permitted-judicial-intervention-in-domestic-arbitration\/#Conclusion\" >Conclusion<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<p>The Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration was introduced in 1985 by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). Countries seeking to improve their arbitration systems have adopted this Model Law. India enacted the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (referred to as &#8216;the Act&#8217;) to govern both domestic and international commercial arbitration, modeled after the Model Law.<\/p>\n<p>Arbitration allows parties to resolve disputes through a neutral third party, known as an arbitrator. Halsbury defines arbitration as the referral of a dispute to an entity other than a court, which decides the matter after a fair hearing. There must be <em>animus arbitrandi<\/em>\u2014an intent to submit the dispute to arbitration.<\/p>\n<p>The arbitrator\u2019s decision, called an &#8216;Award,&#8217; is binding and final. Though courts may set aside an award, this occurs only under specific circumstances. Court intervention may also occur during the arbitration process where necessary.<\/p>\n<p>The Act, including its 2015 and 2019 amendments, was designed to ease the courts\u2019 burden and accelerate dispute resolution, crucial for a developing economy. The legislation aims to facilitate faster commercial resolutions through arbitration while limiting court intervention.<\/p>\n<p>This paper discusses the provisions under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 that allow judicial intervention and analyzes their scope.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Research_Objectives\"><\/span>Research Objectives<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Investigate provisions related to judicial intervention in domestic arbitration.<\/li>\n<li>Analyze the impact of such provisions on party autonomy.<\/li>\n<li>Assess judicial safeguards in ensuring due process and fairness.<\/li>\n<li>Evaluate how judicial intervention affects arbitration efficiency and timeliness.<\/li>\n<li>Examine grounds for setting aside arbitral awards and their implications.<\/li>\n<li>Determine if judicial intervention provisions enhance or hinder justice access.<\/li>\n<li>Compare domestic provisions with international arbitration standards.<\/li>\n<li>Assess the transparency-confidentiality balance in arbitration.<\/li>\n<li>Compare judicial intervention with mediation and litigation for effectiveness.<\/li>\n<li>Propose reforms to improve domestic arbitration\u2019s effectiveness and fairness.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Research_Questions\"><\/span>Research Questions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>How does judicial intervention occur before arbitration proceedings in domestic arbitration? (with case laws)<\/li>\n<li>How does judicial intervention occur during arbitration proceedings? (with case laws)<\/li>\n<li>How does judicial intervention occur after arbitration proceedings? (with case laws)<\/li>\n<li>How does judicial intervention occur in appealable orders? (with case laws)<\/li>\n<li>What is the relevance and importance of the Doctrine of Separability in domestic arbitration?<\/li>\n<li>Is judicial intervention justified? (supported by case laws)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Research_Hypothesis\"><\/span>Research Hypothesis<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The 1940 Act was revised under the 1996 Act but lagged in limiting judicial intervention. Amendments attempt to address this issue.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Literature_Review\"><\/span>Literature Review<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Sneha Mahawar<\/strong> highlights how legislators incorporated constraints to minimize court intervention and promote speedy arbitration.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Anushka Rastogi<\/strong> explains that judicial minimalism is encouraged, allowing limited judicial access to ensure the finality of arbitration awards.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Sankalp Jain<\/strong> notes the various scenarios in which judicial authorities participate in arbitration under the 1996 Act.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Research_Methodology\"><\/span>Research Methodology<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>This study uses narrative and descriptive methods. It relies on secondary sources, including scholarly books and journal articles.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Analysis\"><\/span>Analysis<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Section_5_of_the_Act\"><\/span>Section 5 of the Act<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Section 5 and its 2015 amendment clarify the boundaries of judicial intervention in Part I of the Act. Derived from Article 5 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, it states:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\u201cNotwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, in matters governed by this Part, no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in this Part.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judicial_Intervention_Before_Arbitration_Proceedings\"><\/span>Judicial Intervention Before Arbitration Proceedings<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Section 5 establishes limited court involvement. The Act prioritizes arbitration by overriding other laws. Courts can intervene only as explicitly provided. In <em>Videocon Industries Ltd. v. Union of India<\/em>, the Supreme Court noted limited court interference unless permitted by the Act. Similarly, <em>Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai<\/em> emphasized judicial discretion based on conscience and experience.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Analysis_of_Judicial_Authority\"><\/span>Analysis of Judicial Authority<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>&#8216;Judicial authority&#8217; includes courts and tribunals with judicial powers. As seen in <em>Roshan Lal Gupta v. Parasram Holdings Pvt. Ltd.<\/em>, civil courts may still hear disputes despite arbitration agreements if parties waive arbitration.<\/p>\n<p>Forums like the District Forum, State Commission, and National Commission have also been deemed judicial authorities (<em>Canara Bank v. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd.<\/em>).<\/p>\n<p>Section 8 of the Act empowers courts to refer cases to arbitration if agreements exist and required documents are submitted. The Supreme Court affirmed this in <em>Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Pink City Midway Petroleum<\/em> and <em>Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Verma Transport Company<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Section 8(3) confirms arbitration may proceed despite a pending referral application.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judicial_Intervention_During_Proceedings\"><\/span>Judicial Intervention During Proceedings<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Section 9 allows courts to grant interim relief, distinct from Section 17, which empowers arbitrators. Courts ensure protection of parties\u2019 rights and prevent delay of arbitration.<\/p>\n<p>Relief requires establishing a prima facie case, risk of irreparable harm, and balance of convenience. Courts exercise discretion as in civil cases, aiming to avoid obstruction of arbitration.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Analysis_of_Judicial_Authority-2\"><\/span>Analysis of Judicial Authority<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>There are a few important cases in this area that merit discussion. The first cases that come to mind for a law student when trying to understand the meaning of the phrase \u2018public policy\u2019 and how important it is when determining whether an award can be overturned are <strong>Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co<\/strong> and <strong>ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd.<\/strong> In these cases, it was decided that an award issued in violation of the fundamental policy of Indian law, the interests of India, justice, and morality would be considered to be against public policy.<\/p>\n<p>In <strong>ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd.<\/strong>, the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court revised the definition of public policy. It was decided that \u2018public policy\u2019 encompasses a problem involving the common good and interest that evolves over time. As a result, the ground of \u2018patent illegality\u2019 was added to those mentioned in the Renusagar case\u2019s justifications above.<\/p>\n<p>In the same case, the Supreme Court cited the restrictive definition of \u2018public policy\u2019 established in <strong>Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co.<\/strong> In <strong>Phulchand Exports Ltd. v. OOO Patriot<\/strong>, the error was corrected by broadening the definition of \u2018public policy.\u2019<\/p>\n<p>However, this sparked a wave of Section 34 lawsuits. Awards began to be contested on the grounds that they were unconstitutional or violated a statutory provision. The opportunity to examine the definition of the phrase \u2018fundamental policy of Indian law\u2019 was once again presented to the Hon\u2019ble Apex Court in <strong>ONGC v. Western GECO International Ltd.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>It was determined that \u2018fundamental policy of Indian law\u2019 encompasses three separate heads:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The arbitral tribunal must take a judicial approach.<\/li>\n<li>The tribunal should act in accordance with natural justice principles.<\/li>\n<li>The decision should not be ambiguous or irrational to the point of preventing a fair trial or causing injustice.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>In <strong>Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority<\/strong>, the court held that an award violating the \u2018most fundamental principles of justice and morality\u2019 is subject to being overturned. In <strong>Bfil Finance Ltd. v. G. Tech Store Ltd.<\/strong>, the Hon. Bombay High Court declared that \u2018public policy\u2019 could not entail disobeying the letter of the law.<\/p>\n<p>After the 2015 amendment, judges refrained from interpreting \u2018public policy\u2019 in such a broad sense. Only the grounds listed in Section 34 of the Act may be used to overturn an arbitral tribunal\u2019s decision. No additional grounds may be used.<\/p>\n<p>If the Act\u2019s objectives are to be understood, the term \u2018public policy\u2019 cannot be interpreted broadly, lest every award be subject to appeal. The legislators intended for judicial intervention to be limited. Thus, efforts should be made to only challenge awards on the grounds that they are against India\u2019s \u2018public policy\u2019 in appropriate circumstances.<\/p>\n<p>While implementing its earlier position from <strong>National Highway Authority of India v. Progressive-MVR<\/strong>, the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court observed in <strong>State of Jharkhand v. HSS Integrated SDN &amp; Anr<\/strong> that when the arbitrator\u2019s position is plausible and\/or when two positions are probable, the arbitral tribunal\u2019s sensible position should not be interfered with under Section 34.<\/p>\n<p>An arbitral award must be upheld in conformity with the rules of the Code of Civil Procedure. A domestic award must be enforced once the deadline for filing an application to set it aside has passed or after the application has been denied. Within three months of the award\u2019s receipt date, an application to vacate an arbitral decision must be filed. The court may extend the time by up to 30 days.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judicial_Intervention_in_Appealable_Orders\"><\/span>Judicial Intervention in Appealable Orders<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>According to Section 37 of the Act, certain orders made under the Act may be appealed. There are two types of appealable orders:<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Appeals_against_Court_Rulings\"><\/span>Appeals against Court Rulings<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Under Section 37(1):<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Refusal to refer parties to arbitration under Section 8<\/li>\n<li>Approval or rejection of temporary measures under Section 9<\/li>\n<li>Refusal to set aside an award under Section 34<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Appeals_against_Arbitral_Tribunal_Rulings\"><\/span>Appeals against Arbitral Tribunal Rulings<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Under Section 37(1):<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Acceptance of pleas under Sections 16(2) and (3)<\/li>\n<li>Approval or rejection of temporary orders under Section 17<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>As per Section 37(3), there may not be a second appeal to a decision made under this section. However, a party\u2019s right to approach the Honourable Supreme Court remains unaffected.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Importance_of_Doctrine_of_Separability\"><\/span>Importance of Doctrine of Separability<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The doctrine of separability states that an arbitration clause is distinct and autonomous from the parent contract. This avoids easy challenges to the tribunal\u2019s jurisdiction on the grounds that the parent contract is invalid. The arbitration clause must be evaluated independently. Therefore, a contract defect does not automatically render the arbitration clause invalid.<\/p>\n<p>However, this doctrine was rarely applied in India. In <strong>UOI v. Jagdish Kaur<\/strong> and <strong>India Household and Healthcare Ltd. v. LG Household and Healthcare Ltd.<\/strong>, the Supreme Court concluded that if the contract was unlawful, the arbitration clause was also void.<\/p>\n<p>Recently, courts have favoured this doctrine. The Supreme Court allowed arbitration processes in landlord-tenant agreements in <strong>Vidya Drola &amp; Ors. v. Durga Trading Corporation<\/strong>, citing <strong>Himangni Enterprises v. Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia<\/strong>. According to Section 7(2), an arbitration agreement may be a separate agreement or a clause in a contract. Adopting this doctrine promotes the Act\u2019s purpose.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Is_Judicial_Intervention_Justified\"><\/span>Is Judicial Intervention Justified?<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Some arguments against judicial overreach:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Domestic arbitrations predominate in India, involving government or affiliated bodies, creating inherent bias risks.<\/li>\n<li>Justice can be influenced by power, money, or politics. Arbitrators may lack expertise or independence.<\/li>\n<li>The intent of arbitration law doesn\u2019t match ground reality, defeating its purpose.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>For example:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>In <strong>Delhi Development Authority v. R.S. Sharma<\/strong>, the Court modified an award for not following the contract\u2019s escalation clause.<\/li>\n<li>In <strong>Hindustan Zinc v. Friends Coal Carbonisation<\/strong>, an award granting excessive compensation was overturned for violating contract terms.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Conclusion\"><\/span>Conclusion<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Act aimed to enable speedy, efficient dispute resolution through arbitration with minimal court involvement. However, judicial intervention has often been necessary to interpret ambiguities and uphold justice. While judicial activism is sometimes warranted, interference should be cautious and limited to exceptional cases.<\/p>\n<p>The 2015 and 2019 Amendment Acts reflect the need for dynamic adjustments to the arbitration framework. Courts must guide, not dominate, arbitral processes. Their role should be to strengthen alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, enhancing India&#8217;s legal infrastructure and global arbitration profile.<\/p>\n<p><b>Bibliography<br \/>\nArticles &amp; Online Resources<\/b><\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Sneha Mahawar, <i>Scope of Judicial Interpretation in Arbitration<\/i>, available at: https:\/\/blog.ipleaders.in\/scope-judicial-interpretation-arbitration\/, last visited on 01-08-2025.<\/li>\n<li>Anushka Rastogi, <i>The Scope of Judicial Intervention during different stages of arbitral proceedings<\/i>, The Law Brigade Publishers, Vol. 6, 2021, ISSN 2581-6551.<\/li>\n<li>Jain, Sankalp, <i>Judicial Intervention in Arbitration<\/i> (November 27, 2015), available at SSRN: https:\/\/ssrn.com\/abstract=2801454, last visited on 01-08-2025.<\/li>\n<li>UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, United Nations Documents A\/40\/17, Annex I and A\/61\/17, Annex I.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p><b>Statutes<\/b><\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Act No. 26 of 1996, \u00a7\u00a7 5, 8, 9, 17, 34, 37, 75, 81.<\/li>\n<li>The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Act No. 5 of 1908.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p><b>Cases<\/b><\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Hormusji &amp; Daruwala v. Distt. Local Board, MANU\/SN\/0048\/1934.<\/li>\n<li>Videocon Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, MANU\/SC\/0598\/2011.<\/li>\n<li>P Anand Gajapathi Raju &amp; Ors. v. PVG Raju (Dead) &amp; Ors., MANU\/SC\/0281\/2000.<\/li>\n<li>Secur Industries Ltd. v. Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., MANU\/SC\/1129\/2004.<\/li>\n<li>Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, MANU\/SC\/0559\/2003.<\/li>\n<li>Roshan Lal Gupta v. Parasram Holdings Pvt. Ltd. &amp; Anr., MANU\/DE\/0146\/2009.<\/li>\n<li>Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. N.K. Modi, MANU\/SC\/0141\/1997.<\/li>\n<li>Canara Bank v. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., MANU\/SC\/1123\/1995.<\/li>\n<li>Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Pink City Midway Petroleum, MANU\/SC\/0482\/2003.<\/li>\n<li>Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Verma Transport Company, MANU\/SC\/3491\/2006.<\/li>\n<li>N. Radhakrishnan v. Maestro Engineers &amp; Ors., MANU\/SC\/1758\/2009.<\/li>\n<li>Vijay Kumar Sharma v. Raghunandan Sharma, MANU\/SC\/0072\/2010.<\/li>\n<li>Liverpool and London Steamship Protection and Indemnity Association Ltd. v. Arabian Tankers Company, 2004 (1) RAJ 311 (Bom).<\/li>\n<li>Firm Ashoka Traders v. Gurumukh Das Saluja, 2004 (3) SCC 155.<\/li>\n<li>Sri Krishan v. Anand, (2009) 3 Arb LR 447 (Del).<\/li>\n<li>M\/s. Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. M\/s. N.E.P.C. India Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 565.<\/li>\n<li>ITI Ltd. v. Siemens Public Communications Network Ltd., 2002 (5) SCC 510.<\/li>\n<li>P.R. Shah, Shares and Stock Broker (P) Ltd. v. B.H.H. Securities (P) Ltd., MANU\/SC\/1248\/2011.<\/li>\n<li>M.P. Stock Exchange, Indore v. CMC Ltd., 2011 (103) AIC 675 (MP).<\/li>\n<li>Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co., MANU\/SC\/0195\/1994.<\/li>\n<li>ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd., AIR 2003 SC 2629.<\/li>\n<li>Phulchand Exports Ltd. v. O.O.O. Patriot, MANU\/SC\/1217\/2011.<\/li>\n<li>ONGC v. Western GECO International Ltd., MANU\/SC\/0772\/2014.<\/li>\n<li>Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority, MANU\/SC\/1076\/2014.<\/li>\n<li>Bfil Finance Ltd. v. G. Tech Store Ltd., MANU\/MH\/0531\/2002.<\/li>\n<li>National Highway Authority of India v. Progressive-MVR (JV), MANU\/SC\/0162\/2018.<\/li>\n<li>State of Jharkhand v. HSS Integrated Sdn., MANU\/SC\/1438\/2019.<\/li>\n<li>UOI v. Jagdish Kaur, MANU\/UP\/1977\/2006.<\/li>\n<li>India Household &amp; Healthcare Ltd. v. LG Household &amp; Healthcare Ltd., MANU\/SC\/1253\/2007.<\/li>\n<li>Vidya Drola &amp; Ors. v. Durga Trading Corporation, MANU\/SC\/0363\/2019.<\/li>\n<li>Himangni Enterprises v. Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia, MANU\/SC\/1307\/2017.<\/li>\n<li>Geo Group Communications Inc. v. IOL Broadband Ltd., MANU\/SC\/1833\/2009.<\/li>\n<li>Delhi Development Authority v. R.S. Sharma, (2008) 13 SCC 80.<\/li>\n<li>Hindustan Zinc v. Friends Coal Carbonisation, (2006) 4 SCC 445.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p><b><br \/>\nList of Statutes<\/b><\/p>\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Sr. No.<\/th>\n<th>Name of the Statute<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>1.<\/td>\n<td>Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>2.<\/td>\n<td>Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, w.e.f. 23.10.2015<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>3.<\/td>\n<td>Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019, w.e.f. 09.08.2019<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>4.<\/td>\n<td>Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p><b><br \/>\nList of Cases<\/b><\/p>\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Sr. No.<\/th>\n<th>Name of the Case<\/th>\n<th>Citation of the Case<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>1.<\/td>\n<td>Hormusji &amp; Daruwala v. Distt. Local Board<\/td>\n<td>MANU\/SN\/0048\/1934<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>2.<\/td>\n<td>Videocon Industries Ltd. v. Union of India<\/td>\n<td>MANU\/SC\/0598\/2011<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>3.<\/td>\n<td>P Anand Gajapathi Raju &amp; Ors. v. PVG Raju (Dead) &amp; Ors.<\/td>\n<td>MANU\/SC\/0281\/2000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>4.<\/td>\n<td>Secur Industries Ltd. v. Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd.<\/td>\n<td>MANU\/SC\/1129\/2004<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>5.<\/td>\n<td>Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai<\/td>\n<td>MANU\/SC\/0559\/2003<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>6.<\/td>\n<td>Roshan Lal Gupta v. Parasram Holdings Pvt. Ltd &amp; Anr.<\/td>\n<td>MANU\/DE\/0146\/2009<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>7.<\/td>\n<td>Fair Air Engineers Pvt Ltd. v. NK Modi<\/td>\n<td>MANU\/SC\/0141\/1997<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>8.<\/td>\n<td>Canara Bank v. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd<\/td>\n<td>MANU\/SC\/1123\/1995<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>9.<\/td>\n<td>Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Pink City Midway Petroleum<\/td>\n<td>MANU\/SC\/0482\/2003<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>10.<\/td>\n<td>Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Verma Transport Company<\/td>\n<td>MANU\/SC\/3491\/2006<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>11.<\/td>\n<td>N. Radhakrishnan v. Maestro Engineers and Others<\/td>\n<td>MANU\/SC\/1758\/2009<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>12.<\/td>\n<td>Vijay Kumar Sharma v. Raghunandan Sharma<\/td>\n<td>MANU\/SC\/0072\/2010<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>13.<\/td>\n<td>Liverpool and London Steamship Protection and Indemnity Association Ltd. v. Arabian Tankers Company<\/td>\n<td>2004 (1) RAJ 311 (Bom)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>14.<\/td>\n<td>Firm Ashoka Traders v. Gurumukh Das Saluja<\/td>\n<td>2004 (3) SCC 155<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>15.<\/td>\n<td>Sri Krishan v. Anand<\/td>\n<td>(2009) 3 Arb LR 447 (Del)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>16.<\/td>\n<td>M\/s. Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. M\/s. N.E.P.C. India Limited<\/td>\n<td>AIR 1999 SC 565<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>17.<\/td>\n<td>ITI Ltd. v. Siemens Public Communications Network Ltd<\/td>\n<td>2002 (5) SCC 510<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>18.<\/td>\n<td>P.R. Shah, Shares and Stock Broker (P) Ltd. v. B.H.H. Securities (P) Ltd.<\/td>\n<td>MANU\/SC\/1248\/2011<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>19.<\/td>\n<td>M.P. Stock Exchange, Indore v. CMC Ltd.<\/td>\n<td>2011 (103) AIC 675 (MP)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>20.<\/td>\n<td>Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co.<\/td>\n<td>MANU\/SC\/0195\/1994<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>21.<\/td>\n<td>ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd.<\/td>\n<td>AIR 2003 SC 2629<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>22.<\/td>\n<td>Phulchand Exports Ltd. v. O.O.O. Patriot<\/td>\n<td>MANU\/SC\/1217\/2011<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>23.<\/td>\n<td>ONGC v. Western GECO International Ltd.<\/td>\n<td>MANU\/SC\/0772\/2014<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>24.<\/td>\n<td>Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority<\/td>\n<td>MANU\/SC\/1076\/2014<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>25.<\/td>\n<td>BFIL Finance Ltd. v. G. Tech Store Ltd.<\/td>\n<td>MANU\/MH\/0531\/2002<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>26.<\/td>\n<td>National Highway Authority of India v. Progressive-MVR (JV)<\/td>\n<td>MANU\/SC\/0162\/2018<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>27.<\/td>\n<td>State of Jharkhand v. HSS Integrated Sdn<\/td>\n<td>MANU\/SC\/1438\/2019<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>28.<\/td>\n<td>UOI v. Jagdish Kaur<\/td>\n<td>MANU\/UP\/1977\/2006<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>29.<\/td>\n<td>India Household &amp; Healthcare Ltd. v. LG Household &amp; Healthcare Ltd.<\/td>\n<td>MANU\/SC\/1253\/2007<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>30.<\/td>\n<td>Vidya Drola &amp; Ors. v. Durga Trading Corporation<\/td>\n<td>MANU\/SC\/0363\/2019<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>31.<\/td>\n<td>Himangni Enterprises v. Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia<\/td>\n<td>MANU\/SC\/1307\/2017<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>32.<\/td>\n<td>Geo Group Communications INC. v. IOL Broadband Limited<\/td>\n<td>MANU\/SC\/1833\/2009<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>33.<\/td>\n<td>Delhi Development Authority v. R.S. Sharma<\/td>\n<td>(2008) 13 SCC 80<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>34.<\/td>\n<td>Hindustan Zinc v. Friends Coal Carbonisation<\/td>\n<td>(2006) 4 SCC 445<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p><b><br \/>\nTable of Contents<\/b><\/p>\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Sr. No.<\/th>\n<th>Particulars<\/th>\n<th>Page No.<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>1.<\/td>\n<td>List of Statutes<\/td>\n<td>2<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>2.<\/td>\n<td>List of Cases<\/td>\n<td>2<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>3.<\/td>\n<td>Introduction<\/td>\n<td>6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>4.<\/td>\n<td>Research Objectives<\/td>\n<td>7<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>5.<\/td>\n<td>Research Questions<\/td>\n<td>8<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>6.<\/td>\n<td>Research Hypothesis<\/td>\n<td>8<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>7.<\/td>\n<td>Literature Review<\/td>\n<td>8<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>8.<\/td>\n<td>Research Methodology<\/td>\n<td>9<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>9.<\/td>\n<td>Analysis<\/td>\n<td>9<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>10.<\/td>\n<td>Judicial Intervention before Arbitration Proceedings<\/td>\n<td>10<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>11.<\/td>\n<td>Judicial Intervention during Proceedings<\/td>\n<td>13<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>12.<\/td>\n<td>Judicial Intervention after Proceedings<\/td>\n<td>15<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>13.<\/td>\n<td>Judicial Intervention in Appealable Orders<\/td>\n<td>20<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>14.<\/td>\n<td>Importance of Doctrine of Separability<\/td>\n<td>20<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>15.<\/td>\n<td>Is Judicial Intervention Justified?<\/td>\n<td>21<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>16.<\/td>\n<td>Conclusion<\/td>\n<td>22<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>17.<\/td>\n<td>Bibliography<\/td>\n<td>23<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p><b><br \/>\nWritten By: Pratik Avinash Dahule<\/b> &#8211; Final-year student at National Law University, Nagpur<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Introduction Today\u2019s world is experiencing rapid growth in extraterritorial trade, leading to inevitable disputes among participating parties. Due to the value of time, parties often prefer resolving differences outside traditional courtrooms. With millions of pending cases, the courts are overburdened. Additionally, to preserve privacy and commercial relations, court intervention is generally avoided. Arbitration is the<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":290,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[330,28],"class_list":{"0":"post-6871","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-arbitration-law","7":"tag-arbitration","8":"tag-top-news"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6871","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/290"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6871"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6871\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6871"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6871"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6871"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}