Extent of Judicial Intervention in Arbitration
📘 Extent of Judicial Intervention in Arbitration
🔹 Introduction
Arbitration is designed to be an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, providing a quicker, cheaper, and less formal way to resolve disputes compared to traditional court litigation. The fundamental idea is to minimize judicial interference to uphold the autonomy of the arbitration process.
However, the role of courts is not eliminated altogether. Courts do intervene at certain stages to ensure fairness, legality, and enforcement of arbitration agreements and awards.
🔹 Principles Governing Judicial Intervention
The general principle is that judicial intervention in arbitration should be minimal and limited to specific situations prescribed by law.
The purpose is to ensure that arbitration is a speedy and effective dispute resolution process and courts are not a parallel forum to re-litigate the dispute.
🔹 Judicial Intervention Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (India)
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) governs arbitration in India and sets out the limited scope of judicial intervention.
Section 5: Courts shall not intervene except where so provided in the Act.
Section 8: Court shall refer parties to arbitration if there is a valid arbitration agreement.
Section 9: Court can grant interim relief before or during arbitration.
Section 11: Appointment of arbitrators when parties fail to agree.
Section 16: Jurisdiction of arbitral tribunal — court can intervene if tribunal lacks jurisdiction.
Section 34: Challenge of arbitral award — courts can interfere only on limited grounds.
Section 36: Enforcement of arbitral award.
🔹 When Courts Can Intervene
Existence and Validity of Arbitration Agreement
Courts ensure the validity and existence of arbitration agreement and may refer parties to arbitration (Section 8).
Appointment of Arbitrators
When parties fail to appoint arbitrators, courts intervene to ensure the arbitration proceeds (Section 11).
Interim Measures
Courts can grant interim relief to protect assets or evidence pending arbitration (Section 9).
Jurisdictional Challenges
Courts can decide whether the arbitral tribunal has jurisdiction or not (Section 16).
Challenge of Award
Courts can set aside arbitral awards on limited grounds such as:
Incapacity of a party
Invalid arbitration agreement
Procedural irregularities affecting fairness
Award beyond the scope of submission
Public policy violation (Section 34)
Enforcement of Award
Courts enforce arbitral awards as decrees, subject to conditions (Section 36).
🔹 Scope of Judicial Intervention: How Far Can Courts Go?
Minimalist Approach: Courts should not interfere with the merits of the dispute and must respect the autonomy of the arbitration.
Limited Grounds for Interference: Only procedural fairness, jurisdictional issues, and public policy considerations are permissible grounds.
No Re-Appraisal of Evidence: Courts do not re-examine facts or evidence in challenges.
Enforcement Support: Courts support arbitration by enforcing awards and granting interim measures.
🔹 Important Case Laws
1. Bharat Aluminum Co. v. Kaiser Aluminum Technical Services Inc. (BALCO) [(2012) 9 SCC 552]
Held: Supreme Court emphasized minimal judicial interference and that courts cannot interfere with the merits of an arbitral award under Section 34 except on the grounds expressly mentioned.
It also clarified that Part I of the Arbitration Act (Sections 9, 11, 34) applies to arbitrations conducted within India, but foreign awards fall under Part II, limiting court intervention further.
2. S.B.P. & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd. [(2005) 8 SCC 618]
Held: Courts cannot interfere with the arbitral award on the ground that the award is “perverse” or “wrong on facts or law.” Interference is allowed only on the limited grounds in Section 34.
3. Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India [(2019) 9 SCC 431]
Held: Supreme Court reiterated that arbitration is a speedy dispute resolution mechanism and courts must avoid unnecessary interference. The court clarified that “public policy” as a ground for setting aside awards should be narrowly construed.
4. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. [(2009) 1 SCC 267]
Held: Expanded the meaning of “public policy” under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) to include awards that are:
Contrary to fundamental policy of Indian law,
In conflict with the interest of India,
In violation of principles of natural justice,
Patently illegal.
5. Chloro Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. [(2013) 1 SCC 641]
Held: The Court limited the scope of “patent illegality” as a ground to set aside awards, reinforcing minimal judicial interference.
🔹 Summary Table: Grounds for Judicial Intervention
| Stage | Grounds for Court Intervention | Relevant Section |
|---|---|---|
| Existence of agreement | Validity of arbitration agreement; refer to arbitration | Section 8 |
| Appointment | When parties fail to appoint arbitrator | Section 11 |
| Interim relief | Grant interim measures to protect rights | Section 9 |
| Jurisdiction | Challenge jurisdiction of arbitral tribunal | Section 16 |
| Challenge of award | Limited grounds: invalid agreement, procedural irregularity, public policy | Section 34 |
| Enforcement | Enforcement of arbitral award | Section 36 |
✅ Conclusion
The judicial intervention in arbitration is deliberately kept minimal to preserve the efficacy of arbitration.
Courts intervene only in exceptional cases expressly provided by law.
The intervention is mostly procedural and jurisdictional, not on merits.
This principle ensures arbitration remains an effective and preferred mode of dispute resolution, relieving the courts from heavy caseloads.
RELATED Blog
0 comments