A critical analysis of judicial scrutiny of Appealable orders under arbitration and Conciliation act 1996

Abstract

The court plays an important role in the entire process of arbitration under the newlineArbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Arbitration, though being a private process of newlineresolution of disputes, has legal consequences. To give effect to these legal consequences, the newlinecourt has to step in at various stages. The courts will have to support, assist, and enforce the newlinearbitral awards. The powers that the court exercises are conferred under the statute. There have newlinebeen inconsistencies in the approaches the courts have adopted while supervising the arbitral newlineprocess. This has led to much confusion with respect to the circumstances and the principles newlineon the basis of which these powers have to be exercised. In each case, the court will have to newlinedetermine the circumstances for intervention. Sometimes this has led to excessive intervention, newlinewhich is uncalled for by the Act, as well as for the growth of arbitration. Whenever judicial newlineintervention becomes excessive, it will amount to delay and defeats the purpose of the newlinearbitration. This never means that there should not be judicial supervision at all. In this context, newlineit is necessary to examine judicial supervision of appealable orders under the Act to critically newlineappreciate if the courts supervision of appealable orders is in consonance with the objectives newlineof the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or is it excessive. newline