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

Section 5 can be tested by asking, for any proposed basis of intervention, whether a specific provision of the Act actually authorises it, and whether that provision, not something else, is what is being relied upon.

Applying the test:
Party consent to supervision, an unspecified procedural irregularity, and a court's own view that the award seems unjust on facts are none of them grounded in any specific enabling provision of Part I. They rely instead on agreement, generality, or subjective judgment, none of which Section 5 recognises as sufficient.

Conclusion:
Only intervention that traces back to an express provision within the Act, such as the sections governing interim measures or challenges to an award, satisfies the test Section 5 sets up.

\[ \boxed{\text{When the Act expressly permits such intervention.}} \]

Answer 2

Section 5 exists to preserve arbitration as a genuinely private, self-contained dispute resolution process, keeping courts out unless the statute itself opens a specific door. Testing each option against that purpose of minimal, textually-anchored intervention shows which one actually fits.

1. Party request for supervision: Letting the parties invite court supervision simply by agreement would let private consent override the statutory scheme, undermining the very purpose of Section 5.
2. Express permission under the Act: Confining intervention strictly to situations the Act itself specifies protects the autonomy of arbitration while still allowing the necessary support functions the legislature built in, such as interim relief or a structured challenge to an award.
3. Alleged procedural irregularity without a specific provision: Allowing courts to step in on a vague procedural complaint, with no textual basis, would open the door to the very unpredictable interference Section 5 was drafted to prevent.
4. Court's view that the award is unjust on facts: Permitting judicial second-guessing of the arbitrator's factual findings would turn arbitration into just another layer before the courts, defeating the whole purpose of choosing arbitration as a faster, more autonomous process.

Only intervention rooted in the Act's own express provisions actually respects the purpose of minimal judicial interference that Section 5 was written to protect.

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