{"id":371066,"date":"2025-12-29T09:00:56","date_gmt":"2025-12-29T03:30:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=371066"},"modified":"2025-12-27T11:26:20","modified_gmt":"2025-12-27T05:56:20","slug":"sbp-patel-upnl-ncl-judicial-intervention-arbitration-section-11","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/29\/sbp-patel-upnl-ncl-judicial-intervention-arbitration-section-11\/","title":{"rendered":"From SBP v. Patel to UPNL v. NCL: How Amendments Reshaped Judicial Intervention in Arbitration"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

The 2015 Amendment<\/a>, inserting Section 11(6-A)<\/a>, was a clear legislative protest, with the Parliament wanting courts to step back and let Arbitral Tribunals do the heavy lifting.<\/p>\n

Introduction: From “mini-trial” to minimal scrutiny<\/h2>\n

For almost a decade after SBP & Co.<\/span> v. Patel Engg. Ltd.<\/span><\/a>1<\/sup><\/a> (SBP Patel<\/span>), Section 11<\/a> applications looked more like mini-trials than a threshold appointment exercise. The Chief Justice or his designate, acting in a judicial capacity, would examine not only the existence of an arbitration agreement but also limitation, arbitrability, accord and satisfaction and other “threshold issues”.2<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The 2015 Amendment<\/a>, inserting Section 11(6-A)<\/a>, was a clear legislative protest this approach. Parliament wanted courts to step back and let Arbitral Tribunals do the heavy lifting. Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd.<\/span> v. Northern Coal Field Ltd.<\/span><\/a>3<\/sup><\/a> (UPNL<\/span>) is an important case because it shows the Supreme Court enforcing that legislative redesign in a concrete factual setting, and quietly burying the old SBP-style mindset that allowed High Courts to reject claims as “time-barred” at the referral stage.<\/p>\n

The SBP Patel<\/span><\/a> regime: Section 11 as a broad judicial gateway<\/h2>\n

In SBP Patel case<\/span><\/a>4<\/sup><\/a>, a seven-Judge Bench held that the power of the Chief Justice (or designate) under Section 11 was judicial, not administrative. This apparently simple characterisation had huge practical consequences. The Court laid down categories of issues that the Chief Justice: (i<\/span>) must decide; (ii<\/span>) may decide; and (iii<\/span>) should leave to the Tribunal. In practice, this opened the door for courts to decide:<\/p>\n

1. whether claims were time-barred or “dead”;<\/p>\n

2. whether there was accord and satisfaction;<\/p>\n

3. whether disputes were arbitrable; and<\/p>\n

4. whether there was a valid arbitration agreement at all.5<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

SBP Patel case<\/span><\/a>6<\/sup><\/a> effectively rewrote Section 11 by allowing extensive judicial scrutiny at the appointment stage and pushing the kompetenz-kompetenz principle into the background, restricting it mainly to arbitrations where the court had not already pronounced on jurisdiction.7<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The result:<\/p>\n

1. delay,<\/p>\n

2. increased costs, and<\/p>\n

3. an arbitration system heavily dependent on the courts — exactly the opposite of what the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (1996 Act) intended.<\/p>\n

Legislative response: Section 11(6-A) and the 246th Law Commission Report<\/h2>\n

The 246th Law Commission Report, 2014<\/a> sharply criticised this SBP-driven expansion of Section 11 as inconsistent with the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law and with the policy of minimal intervention. It recommended a new Section 11(6-A)<\/a> to confine courts to a single question:<\/p>\n

Does an arbitration agreement exist?<\/p>\n

Parliament implemented this through the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015<\/a>, inserting Section 11(6-A)<\/a> which stated that the Court “shall… confine itself to the examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement”.<\/p>\n

Subsequent Supreme Court decisions consolidated this narrow reading:<\/p>\n

1. Duro Felguera S.A.<\/span> v. Gangavaram Port Ltd.<\/span><\/a>8<\/sup><\/a> — the Court must only see if an arbitration agreement exists; nothing more.9<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

2. Mayavati Trading (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. Pradyuat Deb Burman<\/span><\/a>10<\/sup><\/a> — explicitly holds that Section 11(6-A)<\/a> legislatively overrules SBP Patel<\/span><\/a>-style scrutiny and that courts cannot go into limitation or arbitrability at the Section 11 stage.<\/p>\n

So, by the time UPNL case<\/span><\/a>11<\/sup><\/a> reached the Supreme Court, the law on paper was clear: Only existence of an arbitration agreement is examinable; everything else belongs to the Tribunal.<\/p>\n

Facts and the High Court’s “SBP Hangover”<\/h2>\n

UPNL, a corporation meant to provide employment to ex-servicemen, entered a long-term contract with Northern Coalfields Limited (NCL) for security services. Over time, disputes emerged regarding non-payment and deductions from running bills. After repeated demands, UPNL invoked arbitration in 2016 (post-2015 Amendment) and issued notices seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator. NCL did not respond.<\/p>\n

UPNL then approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Section 11(6). Instead of asking the limited post-2015 question (“is there an arbitration clause?”), the High Court reverted to the old SBP mindset and examined limitation. It concluded that the claim was time-barred and dismissed the Section 11 application, treating limitation as a threshold bar to even referring the dispute to arbitration.<\/p>\n

In other words, the High Court behaved as if Section 11(6-A)<\/a> did not exist.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court’s intervention in UPNL<\/span> v. NCL<\/span><\/a><\/h2>\n

1. Recentering Section 11(6-A)<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

On appeal, the Supreme Court directly confronted the High Court’s approach. It held that after the 2015 Amendment<\/a>, the only permissible inquiry under Section 11(6) via Section 11(6-A)<\/a>, is whether a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties. All other objections — including limitation — must be left to the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16.<\/p>\n

The Court relied on:<\/p>\n

(a<\/span>) Section 11(6-A)<\/a> itself, with its non obstante clause (notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court…), which clearly aimed at neutralising SBP Patel case<\/span><\/a>12<\/sup><\/a> and related decisions.<\/p>\n

(b<\/span>) Duro Felguera case<\/span><\/a>13<\/sup><\/a> and Mayavati Trading case<\/span><\/a>14<\/sup><\/a>, which had already affirmed this narrow “existence only” test.15<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

2. Limitation as a Section 16 question<\/span><\/p>\n

The Court emphasised that limitation is:<\/p>\n

(a<\/span>) a mixed question of fact and law; and<\/p>\n

(b<\/span>) directly tied to the tribunal’s jurisdiction and assessment of evidence.<\/p>\n

Under Section 16 (kompetenz-kompetenz), the Arbitral Tribunal is empowered to rule on its own jurisdiction, including on objections based on limitation. Therefore, by rejecting the Section 11 application on limitation grounds, the High Court usurped the Tribunal’s statutory function.<\/p>\n

3. Operative directions<\/span><\/p>\n

The Supreme Court:<\/p>\n

(a<\/span>) set aside the High Court’s order;<\/p>\n

(b<\/span>) appointed Justice A.M. Sapre (Retd.) as sole arbitrator;<\/p>\n

(c<\/span>) directed compliance with Section 12 disclosures and the timeline under Section 29-A; and<\/p>\n

(d<\/span>) left all questions, including limitation, expressly open for the arbitrator to decide.<\/p>\n

What exactly changed from SBP Patel<\/span><\/a>?<\/h2>\n

This is the heart of your piece, so let us state it clearly and technically.<\/p>\n

1. Nature and scope of Section 11 power<\/span><\/p>\n

(a<\/span>) Under SBP Patel (pre-2015):<\/p>\n

(i<\/span>) Section 11 power was characterised as judicial.<\/p>\n

(ii<\/span>) The Chief Justice\/designate could examine: Validity of the arbitration agreement, arbitrability, limitation, accord and satisfaction, etc.<\/p>\n

(iii<\/span>) Section 11 became a substantive adjudicatory stage, front-loading several jurisdictional and factual questions.16<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

(b<\/span>) Under Section 11(6-A)<\/a> + UPNL (post-2015)<\/p>\n

(i<\/span>) Power is still judicial in nature, but its content is radically narrowed.<\/p>\n

(ii<\/span>) The Court is confined to prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement nothing more.<\/p>\n

(iii<\/span>) Limitation, dead claims, excepted matters, etc. are for the tribunal under Section 16, not for the Section 11 court.<\/p>\n

2. Relationship with kompetenz-kompetenz<\/span><\/p>\n

(a<\/span>) SBP Patel case<\/span><\/a>17<\/sup><\/a> essentially diluted kompetenz-kompetenz by allowing courts to decide jurisdictional questions at the referral stage, leaving tribunals with a more residual role.<\/p>\n

(b<\/span>) UPNL case<\/span><\/a>18<\/sup><\/a>, building on Section 11(6-A)<\/a> and Mayavati Trading case<\/span><\/a>19<\/sup><\/a>, restores kompetenz-kompetenz by insisting that jurisdictional and limitation issues belong to the Tribunal, not to the Section 11 court.<\/p>\n

3. Effect of the 2019 omission of Section 11(6-A)<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019<\/a> omits Section 11(6-A)<\/a> on paper. However, this omission has not yet been notified, and even Mayavati Trading case<\/span><\/a>20<\/sup><\/a> made it clear that the omission was not intended to revive the SBP era, but to shift appointments to arbitral institutions under Section 11(3-A).21<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

So, three points are crucial:<\/p>\n

(a<\/span>) As of now, Section 11(6-A) still operates because the deletion is unnotified.<\/p>\n

(b<\/span>) SBP-style wide inquiry remains legislatively overruled, not merely “overlooked”.<\/p>\n

(c<\/span>) Even in a future post-notification scenario, the trend of case law (e.g. Vidya Drolia<\/span> v. Durga Trading Corpn.<\/span><\/a>22<\/sup><\/a>, later Section 11 cases) supports a narrow referral jurisdiction, not a return to deep judicial scrutiny.<\/p>\n

The UPNL case<\/span><\/a>23<\/sup><\/a> fits perfectly into this trajectory: it is a concrete application of the post-2015 philosophy that courts must “cut the deadwood” only when there is no arbitration agreement at all, but cannot use Section 11 to decide limitation or merits.<\/p>\n

Present synthesis and doctrinal impact<\/h2>\n

1. Section 11(6-A) remains in force until its omission is notified, so High Courts and the Supreme Court are bound to confine themselves to existence of the arbitration agreement at the referral stage.<\/p>\n

2. SBP Patel case<\/span><\/a>24<\/sup><\/a>, National Insurance Co. Ltd.<\/span> v. Boghara Polyfab (P) Ltd.<\/span>25<\/sup><\/a>, Union of India<\/span> v. Master Construction Co.<\/span>26<\/sup><\/a>, etc. which allowed wide judicial scrutiny (including limitation, dead claims, accord and satisfaction) at the Section 11 stage, stand legislatively overridden by the 2015 Amendment<\/a> and cannot be revived merely because of an unnotified textual omission.<\/p>\n

3. Even if Section 11(6-A) is notified as omitted in future, the combination of Section 5 (minimal judicial intervention), Section 16 (kompetenz-kompetenz) and the Supreme Court’s own jurisprudence (Duro Felguera case<\/span><\/a>27<\/sup><\/a>, Mayavati Trading case<\/span><\/a>28<\/sup><\/a>, Vidya Drolia case<\/span><\/a>29<\/sup><\/a>) will prevent a full return to the SBP regime. The courts will still be expected to:<\/p>\n

(a<\/span>) check existence of the arbitration agreement; and<\/p>\n

(b<\/span>) in very rare cases, refuse reference for prima facie non-arbitrability — not to conduct a full merits review at the appointment stage.30<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

4. In the UPNL case<\/span><\/a>31<\/sup><\/a> therefore is not an isolated decision, but an important affirmation of this modern, pro-arbitration structure: Tribunal, not the Court, is the primary decision-maker on limitation and jurisdictional objections.<\/p>\n

Conclusion: Why UPNL<\/span> v. NCL<\/span><\/a> matters<\/h2>\n

Seen in isolation, UPNL case<\/span><\/a>32<\/sup><\/a> looks like a simple correction of a High Court error about limitation. But when placed in the SBP Patel<\/a> → 2015 Amendment<\/a> → Duro Felguera<\/a>\/Mayavati → UPNL timeline, it becomes clear that the Supreme Court is closing the chapter on the old Section 11 jurisprudence.<\/p>\n

The judgment:<\/p>\n

1. Humanises the pro-arbitration shift by recognising that parties should not be denied arbitration merely because a court, at the threshold, chooses to pre-decide limitation.<\/p>\n

2. Respects the design of the 1996 Act<\/a>, where arbitrators, not Judges, are meant to handle most jurisdictional and factual disputes.<\/p>\n

3. Sends a strong signal to High Courts still operating with an SBP hangover do not convert Section 11 into a mini-trial; appoint the arbitrator and let the Tribunal decide.<\/p>\n

In that sense, UPNL case<\/span><\/a>33<\/sup><\/a> is not just about one contract between a welfare corporation and a coal company; it is about disciplining judicial behaviour in arbitration and anchoring Indian practice in a truly modern, Tribunal-centric model.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n

*LLM (Corporate & Commercial Laws), DSNLU. Author can be reached at: shree.kriti30@gmail.com<\/a>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

1.<\/a> (2005) 8 SCC 618<\/a> : (2005) 128 Comp Cas 465.<\/p>\n

2.<\/a> Shambhu Sharan, “The Ever-Shifting Paradigm of the Scope of Judicial Intervention at the Stage of Appointment of Arbitrators” (2023) available at <https:\/\/singhania.in\/blog\/the-ever-shifting-paradigm-of-the-scope-of-judicial-intervention-at-the-stage-of-appointment-of-arbitrators?utm_source=chatgpt.com<\/a>>.<\/p>\n

3.<\/a> (2020) 2 SCC 455<\/a> : (2020) 1 SCC (Civ) 570.<\/p>\n

4.<\/a> SBP & Co.<\/span> v. Patel Engg. Ltd.<\/span><\/a>, (2005) 8 SCC 618<\/a> : (2005) 128 Comp Cas 465.<\/p>\n

5.<\/a> O.P. Malhotra, “Opening the Pandora’s Box: An Analysis of the Supreme Court’s Decision in SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Limited” (2013) NLSIR, available at <https:\/\/docs.manupatra.in\/newsline\/articles\/Upload\/98CB9349-134A-4D2C-A047-207D3957AA6B.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com<\/a>>.<\/p>\n

6.<\/a> SBP & Co.<\/span> v. Patel Engg. Ltd.<\/span><\/a>, (2005) 8 SCC 618<\/a> : (2005) 128 Comp Cas 465.<\/p>\n

7.<\/a> O.P. Malhotra, “Opening the Pandora’s Box: An Analysis of the Supreme Court’s Decision in SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Limited” (2013) NLSIR, available at <https:\/\/docs.manupatra.in\/newsline\/articles\/Upload\/98CB9349-134A-4D2C-A047-207D3957AA6B.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com<\/a>>.<\/p>\n

8.<\/a> (2017) 9 SCC 729<\/a> : (2017) 4 SCC (Civ) 764.<\/p>\n

9.<\/a> Shambhu Sharan, “The Ever-Shifting Paradigm of the Scope of Judicial Intervention at the Stage of Appointment of Arbitrators” (2023) available at <https:\/\/singhania.in\/blog\/the-ever-shifting-paradigm-of-the-scope-of-judicial-intervention-at-the-stage-of-appointment-of-arbitrators?utm_source=chatgpt.com<\/a>>.<\/p>\n

10.<\/a> (2019) 8 SCC 714<\/a>.<\/p>\n

11.<\/a> Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd.<\/span> v. Northern Coal Field Ltd.<\/span><\/a>, (2020) 2 SCC 455<\/a> : (2020) 1 SCC (Civ) 570.<\/p>\n

12.<\/a> SBP & Co.<\/span> v. Patel Engg. Ltd.<\/span><\/a>, (2005) 8 SCC 618<\/a> : (2005) 128 Comp Cas 465.<\/p>\n

13.<\/a> Duro Felguera S.A.<\/span> v. Gangavaram Port Ltd.<\/span><\/a>, (2017) 9 SCC 729<\/a> : (2017) 4 SCC (Civ) 764.<\/p>\n

14.<\/a> Mayavati Trading (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. Pradyuat Deb Burman<\/span><\/a>, (2019) 8 SCC 714<\/a>.<\/p>\n

15.<\/a> Shambhu Sharan, “The Ever-Shifting Paradigm of the Scope of Judicial Intervention at the Stage of Appointment of Arbitrators” (2023) available at <https:\/\/singhania.in\/blog\/the-ever-shifting-paradigm-of-the-scope-of-judicial-intervention-at-the-stage-of-appointment-of-arbitrators?utm_source=chatgpt.com<\/a>>.<\/p>\n

16.<\/a> O.P. Malhotra, “Opening the Pandora’s Box: An Analysis of the Supreme Court’s Decision in SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Limited” (2013) NLSIR, available at <https:\/\/docs.manupatra.in\/newsline\/articles\/Upload\/98CB9349-134A-4D2C-A047-207D3957AA6B.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com<\/a>>.<\/p>\n

17.<\/a> SBP & Co.<\/span> v. Patel Engg. Ltd.<\/span><\/a>, (2005) 8 SCC 618<\/a> : (2005) 128 Comp Cas 465.<\/p>\n

18.<\/a> Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd.<\/span> v. Northern Coal Field Ltd.<\/span><\/a>, (2020) 2 SCC 455<\/a> : (2020) 1 SCC (Civ) 570.<\/p>\n

19.<\/a> Mayavati Trading (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. Pradyuat Deb Burman<\/span><\/a>, (2019) 8 SCC 714<\/a>.<\/p>\n

20.<\/a> Mayavati Trading (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. Pradyuat Deb Burman<\/span><\/a>, (2019) 8 SCC 714<\/a>.<\/p>\n

21.<\/a> Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, “Existence and Validity of an Arbitration Clause: A Deep Dive into the Changing Perspective on the Court’s Intervention at the Pre-arbitral Stage: Part 2” (2023) (Lexology, 23-8-2023) available at <https:\/\/www.lexology.com\/library\/detail.aspx?g=0513395c-d2e3-4f9f-ba2f-70f13d868a99&utm_source=chatgpt.com<\/a>>.<\/p>\n

22.<\/a> (2021) 2 SCC 1<\/a>.<\/p>\n

23.<\/a> Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd.<\/span> v. Northern Coal Field Ltd.<\/span><\/a>, (2020) 2 SCC 455<\/a> : (2020) 1 SCC (Civ) 570.<\/p>\n

24.<\/a> SBP & Co.<\/span> v. Patel Engg. Ltd.<\/span><\/a>, (2005) 8 SCC 618<\/a> : (2005) 128 Comp Cas 465.<\/p>\n

25.<\/a> (2009) 1 SCC 267<\/a> : (2009) 1SCC (Civ) 117.<\/p>\n

26.<\/a> (2011) 12 SCC 349<\/a> : (2012) 2 SCC (Civ) 582.<\/p>\n

27.<\/a> Duro Felguera S.A.<\/span> v. Gangavaram Port Ltd.<\/span><\/a>, (2017) 9 SCC 729<\/a> : (2017) 4 SCC (Civ) 764.<\/p>\n

28.<\/a> Mayavati Trading (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. Pradyuat Deb Burman<\/span><\/a>, (2019) 8 SCC 714<\/a>.<\/p>\n

29.<\/a> Vidya Drolia<\/span> v. Durga Trading Corpn.<\/span><\/a>, (2021) 2 SCC 1<\/a>.<\/p>\n

30.<\/a> Kuberinder Bajaj, “Supreme Court Clarifies the Scope of Section 11<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a>” (2024) (IndiaCorpLaw, 2024) available at <https:\/\/indiacorplaw.in\/2024\/11\/26\/supreme-court-clarifies-the-scope-of-section-11-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996\/?utm_source=chatgpt.com<\/a>>.<\/p>\n

31.<\/a> Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd.<\/span> v. Northern Coal Field Ltd.<\/span><\/a>, (2020) 2 SCC 455<\/a> : (2020) 1 SCC ( Civ) 570.<\/p>\n

32.<\/a> Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd.<\/span> v. Northern Coal Field Ltd.<\/span><\/a>, (2020) 2 SCC 455<\/a> : (2020) 1 SCC (Civ) 570.<\/p>\n

33.<\/a> Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd.<\/span> v. Northern Coal Field Ltd.<\/span><\/a>, (2020) 2 SCC 455<\/a> : (2020) 1 SCC (Civ) 570.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Kriti Shree*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":371087,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[42503,1191],"tags":[69598,40741,52449,95794,95797,90670,95795,95793,95798,95796],"class_list":["post-371066","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-legal-analysis","category-op-ed","tag-arbitration-amendment-2015","tag-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996","tag-indian-arbitration-law","tag-judicial-intervention-arbitration","tag-kompetenz-kompetenz-india","tag-limitation-in-arbitration","tag-sbp-v-patel","tag-section-11-arbitration","tag-supreme-court-arbitration-jurisprudence","tag-upnl-v-ncl"],"yoast_head":"\nFrom SBP v Patel to UPNL v NCL: Judicial Intervention under Section 11 | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Analysis of Section 11 arbitration jurisprudence from SBP v Patel to UPNL v NCL and the post-2015 shift towards minimal judicial intervention.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/29\/sbp-patel-upnl-ncl-judicial-intervention-arbitration-section-11\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"From SBP v. Patel to UPNL v. NCL: How Amendments Reshaped Judicial Intervention in Arbitration\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Analysis of Section 11 arbitration jurisprudence from SBP v Patel to UPNL v NCL and the post-2015 shift towards minimal judicial intervention.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/29\/sbp-patel-upnl-ncl-judicial-intervention-arbitration-section-11\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-12-29T03:30:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Judicial-Intervention-under-Section-11-Arbitration.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"From SBP v. Patel to UPNL v. NCL: How Amendments Reshaped Judicial Intervention in Arbitration\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/29\/sbp-patel-upnl-ncl-judicial-intervention-arbitration-section-11\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/29\/sbp-patel-upnl-ncl-judicial-intervention-arbitration-section-11\/\",\"name\":\"From SBP v Patel to UPNL v NCL: Judicial Intervention under Section 11 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/29\/sbp-patel-upnl-ncl-judicial-intervention-arbitration-section-11\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/29\/sbp-patel-upnl-ncl-judicial-intervention-arbitration-section-11\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Judicial-Intervention-under-Section-11-Arbitration.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-12-29T03:30:56+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Analysis of Section 11 arbitration jurisprudence from SBP v Patel to UPNL v NCL and the post-2015 shift towards minimal judicial intervention.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/29\/sbp-patel-upnl-ncl-judicial-intervention-arbitration-section-11\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/29\/sbp-patel-upnl-ncl-judicial-intervention-arbitration-section-11\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/29\/sbp-patel-upnl-ncl-judicial-intervention-arbitration-section-11\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Judicial-Intervention-under-Section-11-Arbitration.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Judicial-Intervention-under-Section-11-Arbitration.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Judicial Intervention under Section 11 Arbitration\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/29\/sbp-patel-upnl-ncl-judicial-intervention-arbitration-section-11\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"From SBP v. Patel to UPNL v. NCL: How Amendments Reshaped Judicial Intervention in Arbitration\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"From SBP v Patel to UPNL v NCL: Judicial Intervention under Section 11 | SCC Times","description":"Analysis of Section 11 arbitration jurisprudence from SBP v Patel to UPNL v NCL and the post-2015 shift towards minimal judicial intervention.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/29\/sbp-patel-upnl-ncl-judicial-intervention-arbitration-section-11\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"From SBP v. Patel to UPNL v. NCL: How Amendments Reshaped Judicial Intervention in Arbitration","og_description":"Analysis of Section 11 arbitration jurisprudence from SBP v Patel to UPNL v NCL and the post-2015 shift towards minimal judicial intervention.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/29\/sbp-patel-upnl-ncl-judicial-intervention-arbitration-section-11\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-12-29T03:30:56+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Judicial-Intervention-under-Section-11-Arbitration.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"From SBP v. Patel to UPNL v. NCL: How Amendments Reshaped Judicial Intervention in Arbitration","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/29\/sbp-patel-upnl-ncl-judicial-intervention-arbitration-section-11\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/29\/sbp-patel-upnl-ncl-judicial-intervention-arbitration-section-11\/","name":"From SBP v Patel to UPNL v NCL: Judicial Intervention under Section 11 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/29\/sbp-patel-upnl-ncl-judicial-intervention-arbitration-section-11\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/29\/sbp-patel-upnl-ncl-judicial-intervention-arbitration-section-11\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Judicial-Intervention-under-Section-11-Arbitration.webp","datePublished":"2025-12-29T03:30:56+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Analysis of Section 11 arbitration jurisprudence from SBP v Patel to UPNL v NCL and the post-2015 shift towards minimal judicial intervention.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/29\/sbp-patel-upnl-ncl-judicial-intervention-arbitration-section-11\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/29\/sbp-patel-upnl-ncl-judicial-intervention-arbitration-section-11\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/29\/sbp-patel-upnl-ncl-judicial-intervention-arbitration-section-11\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Judicial-Intervention-under-Section-11-Arbitration.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Judicial-Intervention-under-Section-11-Arbitration.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Judicial Intervention under Section 11 Arbitration"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/29\/sbp-patel-upnl-ncl-judicial-intervention-arbitration-section-11\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"From SBP v. Patel to UPNL v. NCL: How Amendments Reshaped Judicial Intervention in Arbitration"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Judicial-Intervention-under-Section-11-Arbitration.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":228449,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/04\/18\/the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-should-the-high-courts-exercise-the-powers-of-superintendence-over-arbitral-tribunals\/","url_meta":{"origin":371066,"position":0},"title":"The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Should the High Courts exercise the powers of superintendence over arbitral tribunals?","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"April 18, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"by Abhinav Shrivastava* and Nirmal Prasad**","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Arbitration.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Arbitration.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Arbitration.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Arbitration.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Arbitration.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":240196,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/05\/section-11-after-2019-amendment-act-an-opportunity-to-strengthen-institutional-arbitration-in-india\/","url_meta":{"origin":371066,"position":1},"title":"Section 11 after 2019 Amendment Act \u2013 An Opportunity to Strengthen Institutional Arbitration in India \u00a0","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"December 5, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"by Aniket Pandey*","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/arbitration.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/arbitration.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/arbitration.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/arbitration.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/arbitration.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":203082,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/04\/petition-under-article-226-or-227-challenging-interlocutory-order-passed-in-arbitration-proceedings-not-to-be-entertained\/","url_meta":{"origin":371066,"position":2},"title":"Petition under Article 226 or 227 challenging interlocutory order passed in arbitration proceedings not to be entertained","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 4, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court: A Division Bench comprising of B.R. Gavai and M.S. Karnik, JJ. dismissed a petition filed against the order of the Arbitrator whereby petitioner\u2019s application challenging the arbitration proceedings was rejected. In view of the agreement between the parties, arbitration proceedings were commenced with one R.S. Bhandurge as\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":342416,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/27\/powers-of-arbitral-tribunal-add-or-delete-a-party-under-s-16-an-analysis\/","url_meta":{"origin":371066,"position":3},"title":"Powers of Arbitral Tribunal to add or delete a \u201cParty\u201d under S. 16: An Analysis","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 27, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"by Asangha Rai*","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Powers of Arbitral Tribunal","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/blog-_1_-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/blog-_1_-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/blog-_1_-1.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/blog-_1_-1.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":248052,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/05\/11\/nn-global-mercantile-v-indo-unique-supreme-court-meets-the-international-benchmark\/","url_meta":{"origin":371066,"position":4},"title":"NN Global Mercantile v. Indo Unique: Supreme Court meets the International benchmark","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"May 11, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"by Hiroo Advani\u2020 and Manav Nagpal\u2020\u2020 Cite as: 2021 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 32","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/MicrosoftTeams-image-57.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/MicrosoftTeams-image-57.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/MicrosoftTeams-image-57.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/MicrosoftTeams-image-57.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/MicrosoftTeams-image-57.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":251774,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/07\/27\/the-curious-case-of-bina-modi-v-lalit-modi-permissibility-of-anti-arbitration-injunctions-in-india\/","url_meta":{"origin":371066,"position":5},"title":"The curious case of Bina Modi v. Lalit Modi: Permissibility of Anti-Arbitration Injunctions in India","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"July 27, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"by Hiroo Advani\u2020 and Manav Nagpal\u2020\u2020 Cite as: 2021 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 60","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-120.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-120.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-120.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-120.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-120.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/371066","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=371066"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/371066\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/371087"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=371066"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=371066"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=371066"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}