Article 227 review of arbitral orders requires a patent lack of inherent jurisdiction.

Prathyusha-AMR Joint Venture (“JV”), formed by the petitioner AMR India Limited and a company later placed in liquidation, contracted with opposite party no. 2 to execute highway works.

The JV invoked the arbitration clause in 2019.

After the other JV constituent entered liquidation, its liquidator, relying on powers of attorney, pursued proceedings on the JV’s behalf, including a Section 11 application that resulted in appointment of an arbitrator.

AMR challenged the liquidator’s authority and sought to intervene and terminate the arbitration.

The arbitrator dismissed AMR’s application with costs of Rs. 51,000.

AMR then challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution

1. Whether the arbitrator’s order dismissing AMR’s application disclosed a manifest jurisdictional defect warranting supervisory intervention under Article 227

2. Whether AMR’s dispute over the liquidator’s authority to represent the JV, and AMR’s exclusion from the arbitration, justified intervention before the arbitral award

Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction remains constitutionally available, but the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“1996 Act”) embodies minimal judicial intervention: under Sections 5 and 16, jurisdictional objections are ordinarily for the tribunal to decide, and an order rejecting a Section 16 challenge is generally reviewable after the award under Section 34, unless an appeal lies under Section 37.

Under Section 21, arbitral proceedings commence when the respondent receives the request to refer the dispute to arbitration.

Deep Industries Ltd. v. ONGC, Punjab State Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Emta Coal Ltd., Tarini Prasad Mohanty v. Sunflag Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., and Manash Kamal Bezboruah v. Bokahola Tea Co. (P) Ltd. establish that Article 227 intervention in an ongoing arbitration is confined to exceptional cases of patent lack of inherent jurisdiction; the defect must be apparent and not require extended argument.

Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Ltd. v. Tecpro Systems Ltd. recognises that the tribunal may determine whether a consortium member is a party to the arbitration agreement and whether arbitration was validly invoked or may continue, subject to natural justice.

The Court also applied the principles that silence when there is a duty to speak may preclude later assertion of a right, relying on State of Punjab v. Dhanjit Singh Sandhu and Arosan Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India.

The Court found that the arbitration agreement existed and that the JV—not an individual constituent acting in its own name—had invoked arbitration; the proceedings therefore commenced upon receipt of the 2019 notice.

Whether the liquidator had authority to continue the reference for the JV was a matter the arbitrator could determine under the kompetenz-kompetenz principle, not a patent absence of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The Court also noted that AMR knew of the liquidator’s asserted authority, was asked to clarify its position, and did not respond; it later sought intervention after the evidence had closed, principally to dismiss the JV’s claims.

That conduct, alongside the petitioner’s communications with and shareholding in opposite party no. 2, weighed against discretionary relief.

The Court therefore concluded that the dispute did not meet the exceptional threshold for Article 227 intervention; the authority question could be raised at the appropriate stage, including under Section 34.

The revisional application, C.O. 577 of 2026, was dismissed.

The connected application to recall the interim order was disposed of accordingly; no costs were awarded.