Litigation Law, Mediation Law and Arbitration Law

In a decision on the scope of writ jurisdiction in the context of arbitration proceedings, the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”), in M/s Tarini Prasad Mohanty vs. M/s Sunflag Iron and Steel Company Limited,1 has held that the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 2262 and 2273 of the Constitution of India (“Constitution”) to set aside an order passed under Section 164 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) was not justified, particularly where the arbitrator was seized of the arbitration proceedings.

There is a familiar discomfort in Indian arbitration practice. An arbitral tribunal passes an interlocutory order. One party believes the order is not merely wrong, but seriously prejudicial. The instinctive reaction is to look for an immediate remedy. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, however, does not always provide one.

The June 2026 edition of Fox & Mandal's Dispute Resolution & ADR Newsletter analyses the enforceability of foreign judgments; invocation of arbitration agreements by non-signatories; the interplay between contractual disputes and insolvency proceedings; termination and blacklisting in government contracts; and other recent judgments of the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts