Bombay High Court: In a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, a Single Judge Bench of Farhan P. Dubash, J., held that interference with orders of an Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Arbitration Act’) is permissible only in cases of patent lack of jurisdiction or perversity. Noting that the Tribunal had found the agreements to constitute a composite arrangement, the Court ruled that no patent illegality was disclosed. The petition was accordingly dismissed, with liberty reserved to challenge the impugned orders under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act upon conclusion of the arbitral proceedings.
Background:
The dispute arose from multiple agreements between the parties, including a License Agreement and a Services Agreement. Arbitration was first invoked under the Services General Terms and Conditions Agreement (‘GTC’), leading to constitution of an arbitral tribunal where claims and counterclaims were filed. Insolvency proceedings against one party before the NCLT resulted in adjournment of those proceedings.
Subsequently, arbitration was again invoked under the GTC, and a sole arbitrator was appointed by the Supreme Court. Claims amounting to Rs 45.99 crore were filed, which appeared like earlier counterclaims. Two applications under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act challenging jurisdiction were filed but rejected by the arbitrator, who held that all agreements formed part of a composite transaction.
The petitioners argued that the arbitrator had ex-facie usurped jurisdiction, as claims arose under the License Agreement where arbitration had not been invoked. The respondent submitted that writ interference was unwarranted, that objections had already been raised multiple times, and that the proper remedy was to await the final award and challenge it under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court emphasised that only in rare and exceptional cases, and where it is ex-facie evident that the Arbitral Tribunal has passed an order which is patently illegal or perverse or where the exercise of its power is ex-facie and wholly without jurisdiction, interference from the Writ Court is warranted and not otherwise. The Court noted that the Arbitral Tribunal had recorded a finding that all three agreements form part of a composite arrangement between the parties by relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ameet Lalchand Shah v. Rishabh Enterprises, (2018) 15 SCC 678.
The Court observed that at least at this stage and without the benefit of the final award, it cannot be said that the Arbitral Tribunal has usurped the jurisdiction not vested in it or acted in excess of jurisdiction that was vested in it. The Court highlighted that it did not find any patent illegality in the impugned orders. Thus, interference in writ jurisdiction was not warranted in the present case.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
[SAP India (P) Ltd. v. Cox and Kings Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 5662, decided on 23-12-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Navroz H. Seervai, Senior Advocate with Yohaann Limathwalla, Farhad Sorabjee, Pratik Pawar, Shanaya Cyrus Irani, Siddhesh S. Pradhan i/b. J. Sagar Associates
For the Respondent: Hiroo Advani with Navdeep Dahiya, Janhavi Sakalkar and Esham Karanjikar i/b. Advani Law LLP
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 HERE
