In Brief
This case concerns the proper scope of judicial intervention in arbitration. An appellant and respondent had a brick supply contract with an arbitration clause. Following a dispute over payment, the appellant sought to appoint a sole arbitrator. The respondent opposed this, raising two grounds: that a state-specific arbitration statute applied, and that the claim was time-barred. The arbitrator rejected the respondent's jurisdictional challenge. The respondent then sought to quash this through a High Court writ petition. The Supreme Court held that while constitutional remedies under Articles 226 and 227 exist, they cannot be used to bypass the statutory arbitration framework. Only exceptional circumstances justify writ court intervention. The proper remedy is to challenge the final award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, not to attack preliminary jurisdictional rulings in writ courts.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.