Article 227 review of Section 37 appellate orders is confined to jurisdictional errors.

Disputes arising from a construction contract were referred to arbitration.

The Arbitral Tribunal appointed joint special officers to measure and certify the completed and incomplete work done by the petitioner up to termination of the contract.

After the officers submitted their report, the Tribunal discharged them and dismissed the petitioner’s third application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The petitioner appealed under Section 37 and sought a stay, including an ex parte ad interim injunction after DVC announced that it would open a tender price bid.

The Commercial Court declined to grant ex parte interim relief, prompting this application under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the Commercial Court’s refusal to grant an ex parte ad interim injunction was liable to be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution.

2. Whether the tendering of the balance work, and the asserted need for further joint measurement, justified ex parte interim relief.

Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 empowers the arbitral tribunal to grant interim measures, while Section 37 provides for an appeal against specified orders, including orders under Section 17.

The High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is to be exercised with extreme circumspection in relation to orders made in Section 37 proceedings; the authorities cited by the Court indicate that interference is generally warranted where a jurisdictional issue arises or an order is patently without jurisdiction.

Durgapur Freight Terminal Pvt. Ltd. v. Titagarh Logistics Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 9551, and Ashok Kumar Puri v. S. Suncon Realtors Pvt. Ltd., (2021) 4 HCC (Del) 201.

The Tribunal’s appointment of the joint special officers was for measuring and certifying the completed and incomplete work done by the petitioner up to termination; the petitioner did not contend that the officers had omitted such work from their measurements.

The quantity and value of unexecuted balance work were matters for adjudication by the Tribunal on evidence, rather than matters for determination by the special officers.

Given that the officers had been discharged, the Court found no basis to grant ex parte relief without hearing DVC; the announced opening of the price bid did not, by itself, justify an injunction.

The petitioner raised no jurisdictional issue, and the Commercial Court’s order was not patently without jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed, with no order as to costs.