J U D G M E N T

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant and the respondent are parties in a pending arbitration. The question for consideration is whether the High Court has correctly exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 in granting the respondent/claimant one more opportunity to cross- examine appellant/respondent’s witness, despite the Arbitral Tribunal rejecting such a prayer.

3. The brief facts leading to the present appeals are as follows. The appellant/respondent, a startup company providing educational software and related services, and the respondent/claimant, a provider of capital advisory services to various companies, entered into a Client Service Agreement. Under this agreement, the respondent/claimant was to provide advisory services to the appellant/respondent. Disputes arose between the parties with respect to non-payment of fee for the services rendered by respondent/claimant to appellant/respondent company, prompting respondent/claimant to invoke dispute resolution mechanism through arbitration.

4. Following the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal, proceedings commenced, and parties submitted their respective statemen