Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 1786
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vijay Bishnoi, J
Manash Kamal Bezboruah – Appellant
Versus
Bokahola Tea Company Private Limited – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. …………… OF 2026(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 7233-7234 OF 2026)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Abir Phukan
For the Respondents: Madhavi Diwan
High Courts should not exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to challenge interlocutory orders of an Arbitral Tribunal. Judicial interference is limited to cases of patent lack of inherent jurisdiction, as the Act mandates minimal intervention until the final award is challenged under Section 34.
Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 5, 16, 34 and 37 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11, Order I Rule 10(2) - Constitution of India - Article 227 - Interim orders passed by Arbitral Tribunal - Challenge to maintainability of Revision Petition - Minimal judicial interference - Principles regarding supervisory jurisdiction of High Court.
(B) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 16 - Kompetenz-kompetenz doctrine - Power of Arbitral Tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction - High Court interference under Article 227 is restricted to instances of patent lack of inherent jurisdiction - Perversity justifying interference must stare one in the face. (Paras 22, 26, 27, 28, 30)
(C) Arbitral Proceedings - Joinder of non-signatories - Complex inquiry involving factual and legal aspects - Referral court only performs prima facie assessment - Arbitral Tribunal carries absolute competence to decide status of non-signatory parties to agreement. (Para 31)
Facts of the case:
Appeals were filed against High Court orders which entertained a revision petition against an Arbitral Tribunal's order rejecting jurisdictional objections raised under Section 16 of the Act. The Tribunal had refused to delete certain parties from the proceedings, citing a previous consent order for arbitration. The High Court, via revision, stayed the notices to said parties and rejected the maintainability objection raised by the appellant.
Findings of Court:
The High Court erred in entertaining a challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution against an interlocutory order of an Arbitral Tribunal. The Act provides a self-contained code with limited judicial intervention; aggrieved parties must await the final award for recourse under Section 34. No patent lack of inherent jurisdiction was demonstrated to warrant extraordinary supervisory interference.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in invoking Article 227 jurisdiction to entertain a revision petition against an order of the Arbitral Tribunal regarding the maintainability of proceedings against non-signatories, and whether such intervention violates the principle of minimal judicial interference.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the Arbitral Tribunal possesses the competence to decide its own jurisdiction under Section 16. Article 227 intervention is reserved for cases of patent lack of inherent jurisdiction that stare the court in the face. Interlocutory challenges to arbitral orders should not be permitted as they frustrate the legislative object of expeditious dispute resolution; the appropriate remedy remains a challenge to the final award under Section 34.
Result: Appeals allowed; High Court orders set aside; Revision petition dismissed; Arbitral Tribunal directed to proceed expeditiously.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural background and inception of arbitral appointment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. tribunal ruling on jurisdiction and subsequent high court intervention. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. arguments for minimal judicial interference in arbitration. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. arguments regarding non-signatory status and trial court findings. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. limits of article 227 jurisdiction in arbitral proceedings. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 6. competence of tribunal to decide non-signatory status independently. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
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 financial irregularities. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was filed by Respondent No. 7 seeking reference of disputes to arbitration. Subsequently, vide order dated 07.08.2014, the Trial Court rejected the application filed by Respondent No. 7 under Section
