Back
2026 Supreme(SC) 773
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.V. VISWANATHAN, VIJAY BISHNOI, JJ.
Manash Kamal Bezboruah – Appellant
Versus
M/S Bokahola Tea Company Private Limited & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 8845-8846 of 2026 (Arising Out Of SLP (Civil) Nos. 7233-7234 of 2026)
Decided On : 14-07-2026
For the Appellant(s) : M/S. Kmnp Law Aor, AOR Mr. Abir Phukan, Adv. Mr. V. Shyamohan, Adv. Mr. Prashant Bezboruah, Adv. Ms. Rishika Radhakrishnan, Adv. Mr. Shamik Sanyal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mrs. Madhavi Diwan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Priyanka Das, Adv. Ms. Megha Karnwal, AOR Ms. Nishat Nafisa Ahmed, Adv. Ms. Aishani Narain, Adv. Mr. Prashant Rawat, AOR Mr. Shaveer Ahmed, AOR Mr. Sharad Kamal Bezboruah, Adv.
High Courts should not exercise Article 227 jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders of Arbitral Tribunals regarding jurisdictional objections. Judicial interference is limited exclusively to manifest, patent lack of inherent jurisdiction, as the statutory scheme requires such challenges to be adjudicated through post-award proceedings under Section 34.
Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 5, 16, 34, 37 - Constitution of India - Articles 226, 227 - Arbitral proceedings - Scope of judicial intervention - Challenge to orders passed by an Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16 during the pendency of proceedings - Maintainability of writ jurisdiction - Held, High Court should be extremely circumspect in invoking supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 against orders of Arbitral Tribunals - Interference is permissible only in instances of patent lack of inherent jurisdiction where the perversity is apparent. (Paras 22, 25, 27, 30)
(B) Arbitration - Doctrine of kompetenz-kompetenz - Arbitral Tribunal is empowered to rule on its own jurisdiction - Parties are expected to wait for the final award to challenge such orders under Section 34 of the Act - Legislative intent behind the Act mandates minimal judicial interference to ensure expeditious resolution of disputes. (Paras 22, 26, 33)
Facts of the case:
A dispute relating to the management of a firm was referred to arbitration by a court order. During the proceedings, some parties filed applications to be removed from the array of claimants on the ground that they were non-signatories to the arbitration agreement. The Tribunal treated these as jurisdictional challenges under Section 16 and rejected them. These parties approached the High Court under Article 227, which stayed the notices and rejected the opposing party's challenge to the maintainability of the revision petition. The matter reached the Supreme Court regarding the validity of such intervention under Article 227.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court failed to record any specific finding of patent perversity or inherent lack of jurisdiction in the Tribunal's order. It reiterated that the statutory scheme requires minimal interference and that challenges to Section 16 orders must occur post-award under Section 34.
Issues: Whether an order rejecting a jurisdictional objection filed under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is amenable to a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: In light of the principle of minimal judicial intervention, an Arbitral Tribunal has the competence to decide its own jurisdiction. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is reserved only for rare cases where a patent lack of inherent jurisdiction is so blatant that it stares one in the face; otherwise, judicial review must await the final award process as prescribed by the Act.
Result: Appeals allowed; High Court orders set aside; revision petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initiation of appeal against high court interim and final orders. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. factual history of partnership disputes and supreme court referral to arbitration. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. procedural context regarding jurisdictional challenges before the arbitral tribunal and high court. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. appellant's contention against high court's exercise of article 227 jurisdiction. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. respondent's contention regarding non-signatory status and lack of arbitration intent. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. framing of the legal issue regarding the maintainability of revision petitions against arbitral orders. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 7. principle of minimal judicial intervention in arbitral proceedings. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 8. tribunal's competence to decide jurisdictional questions regarding non-signatories. (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 9. final direction to arbitral tribunal to proceed independently. (Para 34 , 35) |
JUDGMENT :
VIJAY BISHNOI, J.
1. Leave Granted.
2. The present appeals have been preferred by the Appellant challenging the interim order dated 02.09.2025 and order dated 28.01.2026 in CRP/120/2025, passed by the High Court of Gauhati at Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as “High Court”), wherein the High Court vide interim order dated 02.09.2025 stayed the notice issued by the Arbitral Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) to Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and further, vide order dated 28.01.2026, rejected the preliminary objection raised by the Appellant regarding the maintainability of a Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. On 19.09.1948, M/s Boloma Tea Company (Respondent No. 5 herein) was constituted as a partnership firm by Late Ram Kamal Bezboruah, Late Dr. Nil Kamal Bezboruah, Late Indra Kamal Bezboruah and Shri Dhirendra Nath Bezboruah, each holding a share of 25%. A fresh partnership deed was subsequently executed on 28.12.1951 with effect from 01.01.1951, under which Late Indra Kamal Bezboruah, the Appellant's father, continued to hold a 25% share in the firm. In 1967, M/s Bokahola Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No. 1 herein) and M/s Kasojan Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No. 2 herein) were incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Following the demise of Late Indra Kamal Bezboruah on 09.04.1967, a fresh partnership deed was executed on 28.12.1967 with effect from 10.04.1967, under which the remaining three partners held equal shares of 33.33% each in the partnership firm.
4. In 1974, the Appellant, being an IAS Officer, obtained permission from the Government of India to become a sleeping partner in the partnership firm. A fresh partnership deed dated 16.11.1976 was executed whereby, Late Dr. Nil Kamal Bezboruah, Late Ram Kamal Bezboruah and the Appellant were allotted 25% share each; and Shri Dhirendra Nath Bezboruah and Late Smt. Kamala Bezboruah were allotted 12.5% share each. Clause 5 of the partnership deed contained an arbitration clause, providing that disputes or differences among partners would first be referred to the other partners and, if unresolved, would be referred to arbitration before a mutually agreed third party.
5. Late Ram Kamal Bezboruah passed away on 07.08.1989, whose Legal Representatives are Respondent No. 12 to Respondent No. 15 herein. Thereafter, on 15.03.1992, Late Smt. Kamala Bezboruah died and after her death, Late Dr. Amala Bezboruah was inducted as her Legal Representative in Respondent No. 5-Company. Later, M/s Bokahola Investment Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No. 3 herein) was incorporated on 09.06.1995.
6. In July 2012, the Appellant instituted Title Suit No. 38 of 2012 before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Johrat (hereinafter referred to as “Trial Court”), seeking various reliefs including rendition of accounts relating to the affairs of Respondent companies and reserving a right to claim losses and damages arising out of alleged mismanagement and fin
