Question

Judicial intervention in arbitration proceedings is limited under Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In which of the following situations may a court intervene?

• A. When both parties request supervision of proceedings.
• B. When the Act expressly permits such intervention.
• C. When procedural irregularity is alleged without specific provision under the Act.
• D. When the court considers the award unjust on facts.

Hint:

Section 5 is the "Non-Interference" rule. Unless you can point to a specific section in the Act that allows for judicial action, the Court has no jurisdiction to step into an arbitration proceeding!

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, embodies the principle of "minimum judicial intervention." It mandates that no judicial authority shall intervene in arbitration matters except where so provided in Part I of the Act.

Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
- The arbitration process is designed to be autonomous. Therefore, court intervention is not a matter of party request (A) or the court's subjective view on justice (D).
- Intervention is strictly permissible only when specific sections of the Act (such as Section 9 for interim measures or Section 34 for challenging an award) expressly authorize it.

Step 3: Final Answer:
The court can intervene only when the Act expressly permits such intervention. Option (B) is correct.

Answer 2

Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 limits when a court may step into an arbitration governed by Part I of the Act. The question asks in which situation intervention is actually allowed, and each option needs to be tested against the exact language of the section.

1. When both parties request supervision of proceedings: Section 5 does not turn on party consent or a joint request for court supervision. The parties cannot, by agreement, create a right to judicial intervention where the Act itself does not provide one.
2. When the Act expressly permits such intervention: Section 5 states that no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in Part I. This means intervention is tied strictly to specific enabling provisions within the Act, such as interim measures or challenges to an award.
3. When procedural irregularity is alleged without specific provision under the Act: A bare allegation of procedural irregularity, without any specific provision of the Act authorising the court to act on it, is exactly the kind of intervention Section 5 is designed to shut out.
4. When the court considers the award unjust on facts: Courts are not permitted to intervene simply because they personally view the outcome as unfair on the facts, since arbitration is meant to be a largely self-contained process.

Only intervention grounded in an express provision of the Act itself fits the restrictive language of Section 5, which excludes party consent, generalised procedural complaints, and disagreement with the outcome as bases for court interference.

Therefore, the correct answer is When the Act expressly permits such intervention.