Intervention under Article 227 is impermissible against discretionary arbitral orders absent manifest perversity or jurisdictional error.

The petitioner (original respondent) was a subcontractor in a water supply project. Disputes arose following the termination of the contract by the petitioner, leading the respondent (claimant) to initiate arbitration under the MSMED Act, 2006.

During the proceedings on 30.05.2020, the petitioner failed to appear, and the Tribunal recorded the examination-in-chief of the claimant’s witness and discharged him without cross-examination.

The petitioner’s subsequent 2020 application to reopen the case and cross-examine the witness was rejected by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court in March 2021.

In 2025, when the arbitral proceedings reached the stage of final arguments, the petitioner filed a fresh application seeking to recall the same witness for cross-examination.

The Arbitrator rejected this application with costs of Rs. 5,00,000, leading the petitioner to challenge the same under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to interfere with an interlocutory order of an Arbitral Tribunal.

2. Whether the principles of res judicata and waiver apply to a second application seeking witness recall when a similar relief was previously denied and affirmed by a higher court.

3. Whether the denial of witness recall at the final stage of arbitration violates the principle of equal treatment under Section 18 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The court applied the principle of minimal judicial interference in arbitration as established in Bhaven Construction v. Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. and Deep Industries Ltd. v. ONGC, which restrict Article 227 interventions to "exceptionally rare cases" involving patent lack of jurisdiction or bad faith.

Section 18 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 mandates equal treatment of parties and a full opportunity to present their case.

The court applied the discretionary nature of witness recall derived from the principles of Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC, as clarified in Shubhkara Singh v. Abhayraj Singh, which holds that recall is not a vested right but a tool for court clarification.

The court invoked the doctrine of constructive res judicata regarding the finality of litigation.

The petitioner had already exhausted its remedy regarding the cross-examination of the witness in 2020-21. By failing to specifically challenge the non-consideration of the recall prayer in the previous High Court proceedings (SCA No. 1107/2021), the petitioner waived its right to resurrect that specific plea five years later.

Section 18 of the Act does not provide a perpetual right to reopen proceedings; rather, the petitioner was afforded multiple opportunities which it failed to utilize.

The power to recall a witness is highly discretionary, and exercising it at the "fag end" of the proceedings after final arguments had commenced would defeat the object of efficient dispute resolution.

The Tribunal's order was neither perverse nor a jurisdictional error.

The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that there was no ground for interference under Article 227, while clarifying that the petitioner remains free to raise all permissible contentions, including the denial of cross-examination, during potential set-aside proceedings under Section 34 of the Act.