The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for exceptional circumstances to invoke the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227, the limitations on judicial interference in arbitration proceedings, and the availability of statutory remedies under the Arbitration Act, 1996.

ORDER

1. Writ Petition No. 7348 of 2021 is not on board. By consent, it is mentioned and taken on board.

2. In both matters, we granted an ad-interim order on 16th December 2021.

3. For some reason on that day, our attention was not drawn to the fact that in both matters Writs of Mandamus are sought against the Respondents which are private financial entities. Unarguably, neither of these private entities are the 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 and are not susceptible to the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

4. We believe it is wholly impermissible for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India even on questions of jurisdictional competence except perhaps where the arbitral tribunal is itself a statutory tribunal i.e. one created by a statute. The decision of the Supreme Court in Deep Industries Ltd v Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd & Another, (2020) 15 SCC 706 is unambiguous. In paragraph 19, the Supreme Court referred to SBP & Co v Patel Engineering Ltd, (2005) 8 SCC 618 and reaffirmed paragraph 14 of that decision. Paragraph 19 of Deep Industries reads thus:

"19. In SBP & Co., this Court while considering interference with an order passed by an Arbitral Tribunal under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution laid down as follows: (SCC p.663, paras 45-46)

45. It is seen that some High courts have proceeded on the basis that any order passed by an Arbitral Tribunal during arbitration, would be capable of being challenged under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. We see no warrant for such an approach. Section 37 makes certain orders of the Arbitral Tribunal appealable. Under Section 34, the aggrieved party has an avenue for ventilating its grievances against the award including any in-between orders that might have been passed by the Arbitral Tribunal acting under Section 16 of the Act. The party aggrieved by any order of the Arbitral Tribunal, unless has a right of appeal under Section 37 of the Act, has to wait until the award is passed by the Tribunal. This appears to be the scheme of the Act. The Arbitral Tribunal is, after all, a creature of a contract between the parties, the arbitration agreement, even though, if the occasion arises, the Chief Justice may constitute it based on the contract between the parties. But that would not alter the status of the Arbitral Tribunal. If will still be a forum chosen by the parties by agreement. We, therefore, disapprove of the stand adopted by some of the High Courts that any order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal as capable of being corrected by the High Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. Such an intervention by the High Courts is not permissible.

46. The object of dismissing judicial intervention while the matter is in the process of being arbitrated upon, will certainly be defeated if the High Court could be approached under Article 227 or under Article 226 of the Constitution against every order made by the Arbitral Tribunal. Therefore, it is necessary to indicate that once the arbitration has commenced in the Arbitral Tribunal, parties have to wait until the award is pronounced unless, of course, a right of appeal is available to them under Section 37 of the Act even at an earlier stage."

5. This view was even more emphatically reasserted by the Supreme Court in Bhaven Construction Through Authorised Signatory Premjibhai K Shah v Executive Engineer Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd & Anr., (2021) SCC OnLine SC 8 Some of the observations in this context are important and we quote paragraphs 18 to 23, 26 and 27 of Bhaven Construction.

"18. In any case, the hierarchy in our legal framework, mandates that a legislative enactment cannot curtail a constitutional right. In Nivedita Sharma v COAI [(2011) 14 SCC 337 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 947], this Court referred to several judgments and held: (SCC p. 343, para 11)

"11. We have considered the respective arguments/submissions. There cannot be any dispute that the power of the H