No Article 227 Interference With Section 16 Arbitral Ruling Absent Patent Lack of Jurisdiction: Supreme Court in Manash Kamal Bezboruah v. Bokahola Tea [2026 INSC 701]

In Manash Kamal Bezboruah v. M/s Bokahola Tea Company Private Limited & Ors. (2026 INSC 701), the Supreme Court held that although Article 227 cannot be ousted by Section 5 of the Arbitration Act, High Courts must exercise extreme circumspection, and a Section 16 ruling is ordinarily open to challenge only under Section 34 after the award (paras 25, 30, 33). A Bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Vijay Bishnoi held that, under Cox and Kings, whether non-signatories are veritable parties is for the arbitral tribunal, and that the respondent companies, which did not contest the earlier consent reference by the Supreme Court, should have sought its modification or review (paras 31–32). Before entertaining such a revision, a High Court should record a prima facie finding of patent lack of inherent jurisdiction after hearing the other side (para 30).

Status: Gauhati High Court's interim order dated 02.09.2025 and order dated 28.01.2026 in CRP/120/2025 set aside; revision petition dismissed; tribunal to decide the status of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 independently; appeals disposed of (paras 33–35).

Headnote: Article 227 Challenge to a Section 16 Arbitral Ruling

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 5, 8, 16, 34 and 37 – Kompetenz-kompetenz – Jurisdictional objection by non-signatories – Group of Companies doctrine – Veritable party – Constitution of India – Article 227 – Supervisory jurisdiction over arbitral tribunal – Patent lack of inherent jurisdiction – Minimal judicial intervention – Consent reference by the Supreme Court – Failure to seek modification or review.

Held: (i) Article 227 is part of the basic structure and cannot be ousted by Section 5 of the Act, but the Act's aim of minimal judicial interference requires High Courts to exercise it with extreme circumspection during arbitral proceedings (paras 25, 30).

(ii) Following SBP & Co., Deep Industries and Punjab State Power Corporation, interference under Article 227 with a tribunal's Section 16 ruling is warranted only where the order is so perverse that a patent lack of inherent jurisdiction stares one in the face (paras 26–28).

(iii) A Section 16 ruling is ordinarily open to challenge only under Section 34 after the final award; before entertaining an Article 227 revision against it, the High Court should record a prima facie finding of patent lack of inherent jurisdiction after hearing the rival parties (para 30).

(iv) An application under Order VII Rule 11 and Order I Rule 10(2) CPC before a tribunal seeking deletion of a non-signatory party is in substance a Section 16 jurisdictional objection (paras 8, 24).

(v) Under Cox and Kings, whether a non-signatory is a veritable party is a complex inquiry for the arbitral tribunal, giving effect to kompetenz-kompetenz (para 31).

(vi) Parties who did not contest the Supreme Court's consent reference and never sought its modification or review cannot raise the grievance later through a fresh round of litigation (paras 23, 32).

(paras 21–34)

Case Details: Manash Kamal Bezboruah v. Bokahola Tea Company (2026 INSC 701)

Final Outcome: Appeals disposed of; High Court's interim order and order on maintainability set aside; revision petition under Article 227 dismissed; tribunal to decide the non-signatories' status independently and complete the arbitration expeditiously.

Case: Manash Kamal Bezboruah v. M/s Bokahola Tea Company Private Limited & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 701

Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. ___ of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 7233–7234 of 2026)

Court: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) – Reportable

Date of Decision: 14 July 2026

Bench: Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Vijay Bishnoi (author)

Relevant Acts & Sections: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 5, 8, 12, 16, 34 and 37; Constitution of India – Articles 226 and 227; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VII Rule 11, Order I Rule 10(2) and Section 151

Impugned Orders: Interim order dated 02.09.2025 of the Gauhati High Court in CRP/120/2025 staying the tribunal's notice to Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, and order dated 28.01.2026 rejecting the appellant's preliminary objection to the maintainability of the Article 227 revision (para 2)

Counsel: Mr. Abir Phukan for the appellant; Mrs. Madhavi Diwan, Senior Counsel, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (paras 15, 18)

Source: Supreme Court of India

Key Holdings of the Supreme Court

• The High Court was not justified in entertaining the Article 227 challenge and staying the arbitral proceedings (para 33).
• The remedy against rejection of a Section 16 application lies under Section 34 after the final award (paras 30, 33).
• The High Court recorded no specific finding of perversity or patent lack of inherent jurisdiction in the tribunal's order (para 24).
• High Courts should record a prima facie finding of patent lack of inherent jurisdiction, after hearing the other side, before entertaining such revisions (para 30).
• The arbitral tribunal has full competence to decide whether non-signatories are veritable parties (para 31).
• Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 should have sought modification or review of the Supreme Court's consent order instead of starting another round of litigation (para 32).

Brief Facts of the Case

M/s Boloma Tea Company (Respondent No. 5) was a family partnership firm constituted in 1948. Clause 5 of its partnership deed dated 16.11.1976 provided that disputes among partners would go first to the other partners and, if unresolved, to arbitration by a mutually agreed third party. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, private companies incorporated in 1967 and 1995, were not parties to the deed (paras 3–5).

In 2012 the appellant filed Title Suit No. 38 of 2012 seeking rendition of accounts of the respondent companies, alleging mismanagement. The Trial Court rejected Respondent No. 7's Section 8 application on 07.08.2014, as several defendants, including Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, were non-signatories, and the High Court upheld this on 01.11.2021 (paras 6–7).

In Civil Appeal No. 13188 of 2024, the Supreme Court, by a consent order dated 21.11.2024, referred the disputes to arbitration and appointed Justice (Retd.) B.P. Katakey as Sole Arbitrator. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were parties and were served, but did not contest (para 7).

Before the tribunal, Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 sought deletion of their names under Order VII Rule 11 and Order I Rule 10(2) CPC. On 09.06.2025 the tribunal framed issues including maintainability against non-signatories, and on 04.08.2025 it rejected their applications, holding that the Supreme Court's reference left no scope to reconsider the point (paras 8–10).

On their revision under Article 227, the High Court stayed the notices to them on 02.09.2025 and, on 28.01.2026, rejected the appellant's objection to maintainability. The Supreme Court stayed both orders on 16.02.2026 (paras 11–13).

Issues Before the Supreme Court

1. Whether the High Court was justified in holding that a revision petition under Article 227 is maintainable against the arbitral tribunal's order rejecting the non-signatories' jurisdictional objection (para 21).
2. Who decides whether Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are bound by the arbitration agreement (para 31).

Court's Findings and Reasoning

Appellant's case (paras 15–17): Counsel argued, relying on Cox and Kings, that Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were veritable parties, that they were estopped by not contesting the consent order, that the proper remedy was Section 34, and that the High Court gave no reasons on perversity or inherent lack of jurisdiction.

Respondents' case (paras 18–20): Senior Counsel argued that the appellant had earlier maintained that these companies were not parties to the arbitration agreement and could not now approbate and reprobate, that the consent order bound only consenting parties, and that the tribunal's assumption of jurisdiction was perverse.

Scheme of the Act (para 22): The Act is a code in itself. Section 5 limits judicial intervention, Section 16 embodies kompetenz-kompetenz, and Section 34 provides the challenge to an award.

Article 227 survives but with restraint (paras 25–29): Article 227 cannot be ousted by Section 5. But SBP & Co. disapproved of correcting tribunal orders under Articles 226 and 227 mid-arbitration; Deep Industries and Punjab State Power Corporation confine interference to a patent lack of inherent jurisdiction that requires no argument; and Tarini Prasad Mohanty raised the threshold for writ intervention during arbitration.

Safeguard before entertaining revisions (para 30): In the absence of a manifest jurisdictional defect, interference at the interlocutory stage is contrary to the policy of minimal intervention, and the High Court should record a prima facie finding of patent lack of inherent jurisdiction after hearing the rival party.

Tribunal to decide non-signatory status (para 31): Under Cox and Kings, a referral court only decides prima facie the existence of the arbitration agreement; whether a non-signatory is bound is for the tribunal. So the tribunal's order should not have been challenged under Article 227.

Conduct of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (para 32): They were parties to the earlier civil appeal but did not contest it or seek modification or review. Raising the point later caused another avoidable round of litigation, which defeats the object of the Act.

Final Outcome and Directions

• High Court's orders dated 02.09.2025 and 28.01.2026 set aside, and the revision petition before the High Court dismissed (para 33).
• The tribunal, which has already framed issues on the jurisdictional objections, shall decide the status of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 independently, uninfluenced by this decision (para 34).
• The tribunal shall complete the arbitration expeditiously in accordance with law (para 34).
• Appeals disposed of; pending applications disposed of (para 35).

Legal Principle Laid Down

The High Court's supervisory power under Article 227 survives the non-obstante clause in Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, but it should not be used to interfere with an arbitral tribunal's ruling under Section 16 unless the order shows a patent lack of inherent jurisdiction. Such a ruling is ordinarily open to challenge only under Section 34 after the award, and before entertaining a revision the High Court should record a prima facie finding of patent lack of inherent jurisdiction after hearing the other side. Whether a non-signatory is a veritable party is for the tribunal (paras 25, 30–31, 33).

Precedents Relied Upon

• SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd., (2005) 8 SCC 618 (Constitution Bench) – Relied upon – High Courts cannot correct arbitral orders under Articles 226/227 during arbitration. Discussed at para 26.
• Deep Industries Ltd. v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., (2020) 15 SCC 706 – Relied upon – interference limited to patent lack of inherent jurisdiction. Discussed at paras 12, 27.
• Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. v. Emta Coal Ltd., (2020) 17 SCC 93 (three-Judge Bench) – Relied upon – perversity must stare one in the face. Discussed at paras 12, 28.
• M/s Tarini Prasad Mohanty v. M/s Sunflag Iron and Steel Company Limited, 2026 INSC 566 – Relied upon – higher threshold for writ intervention during arbitration. Discussed at para 29.
• Cox and Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd., 2024 (4) SCC 1 (Constitution Bench) – Relied upon – non-signatory status for the tribunal to decide. Discussed at paras 15, 31.
• Sukanya Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Jayesh H. Pandya, (2003) 5 SCC 531 – relied on by the Trial Court in the earlier round. Discussed at paras 6, 18.

Important Paragraphs of the Judgment

Verbatim extracts from the judgment. For the full text, refer to the judgment PDF below.

Para 24: "It is to be noted that while passing the impugned order dated 28.01.2026 the High court has not recorded any specific finding as to perversity or any patent lack of inherent jurisdiction in the order dated 04.08.2025 passed by the Tribunal"

Para 25: "... although Section 5 of the Act restricts judicial intervention, except as expressly provided under the Act, such restriction cannot curtail or oust the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution of India."

Para 30: "It is always safe for the High Courts that, before entertaining revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, while exercising powers under Section 16 of the Act, it should record a prima facie finding regarding the patent lack of inherent jurisdiction and that too after providing an opportunity of hearing to the rival party/parties."

Para 31: "Therefore, the Arbitral Tribunal possessed the absolute competence to decide the question as to whether Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were veritable parties to the arbitration agreement, notwithstanding their non-signatory status ..."

Para 32: "Even if they felt that there was any discrepancy in the order passed by this court which might cause prejudice as to parties to the proceedings, they ought to have filed for modification of the order or a review but they failed to do so."

Para 33: "The remedy against the rejection of a Section 16 of the Act application strictly lies under Section 34 of the Act after the pronouncement of the final award."

Practical Impact of the Ruling

• For parties to arbitration: A rejected Section 16 objection must ordinarily await the award and be raised under Section 34 (paras 30, 33).
• For non-signatory companies: Whether they are bound as veritable parties will be decided by the tribunal, not by the High Court mid-arbitration (para 31).
• For High Courts: Before entertaining an Article 227 revision against a Section 16 ruling, record a prima facie finding of patent lack of inherent jurisdiction after hearing the other side (para 30).
• For litigants served in Supreme Court proceedings: A party that does not contest a consent reference should seek modification or review promptly rather than challenge it later (para 32).
• For arbitral tribunals: Jurisdictional issues framed as preliminary issues should be decided independently and the arbitration completed expeditiously (para 34).

FAQs on Article 227 and Section 16 Arbitral Rulings

1. What did the Supreme Court decide in Manash Kamal Bezboruah v. Bokahola Tea Company?

It set aside the Gauhati High Court's orders entertaining an Article 227 revision against an arbitral tribunal's Section 16 ruling and dismissed that revision (para 33).

2. Can a High Court interfere under Article 227 with an arbitral tribunal's order?

Article 227 is not ousted, but interference is warranted only where the order shows a patent lack of inherent jurisdiction (paras 25, 27–28, 30).

3. What is the remedy against rejection of a Section 16 objection?

It strictly lies under Section 34 after the final award is pronounced (para 33).

4. Who decides whether a non-signatory is bound by an arbitration agreement?

The arbitral tribunal, as held in Cox and Kings, giving effect to kompetenz-kompetenz under Section 16 (para 31).

5. What will happen to Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 now?

The tribunal will decide their status in the arbitration independently, uninfluenced by the Supreme Court's decision, and complete the proceedings expeditiously (para 34).

Keywords: 2026 INSC 701, Manash Kamal Bezboruah v. Bokahola Tea Company, Article 227 arbitration, Section 16 Arbitration Act, kompetenz-kompetenz, Section 34 challenge, Section 5 minimal judicial intervention, patent lack of inherent jurisdiction, non-signatory, veritable party, Group of Companies doctrine, Cox and Kings, Deep Industries, SBP and Co, Justice Vijay Bishnoi, Justice K.V. Viswanathan, Supreme Court judgment

Related on LegalTaxGuru

• More Corporate Law Supreme Court Reportable judgments
• Corporate Law articles

Download Judgment PDF – Manash Kamal Bezboruah v. Bokahola Tea Company

Judgment PDF: 2026 INSC 701 – Manash Kamal Bezboruah v. M/s Bokahola Tea Company Private Limited & Ors. (SLP (Civil) Nos. 7233–7234 of 2026) – Download Judgment PDF

Source: Supreme Court of India (official website).