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 procedural irregularity is alleged without specific provision under the Act.
• C. When the court considers the award unjust on facts.
• D. When the Act expressly permits such intervention.

Hint:

Remember Section 5 as the "Minimal Intervention Principle." The court can step in only when the Act specifically opens the door for judicial involvement.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Concept: The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is founded on the principle of party autonomy and minimal judicial interference. Section 5 embodies this principle by restricting court intervention except in situations specifically provided by the Act.

Step 1: Understanding Section 5.
* Section 5 states that no judicial authority shall intervene in matters governed by Part I of the Act except where such intervention is expressly provided. * The objective is to ensure that arbitration remains an efficient and independent dispute-resolution mechanism.

Step 2: Instances where intervention is permitted.
* Appointment of arbitrators under Section 11. * Grant of interim measures under Section 9. * Setting aside an arbitral award under Section 34. * Enforcement-related proceedings specifically authorized by the Act.

Step 3: Why other options are incorrect.
* Mere request of parties cannot enlarge the court's jurisdiction. * Alleged procedural irregularities do not justify intervention unless the Act permits it. * Courts cannot re-examine facts merely because they consider the award unjust.

Judicial intervention in arbitration is permissible only when expressly authorized by the Arbitration Act.