Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 lets the tribunal rule on its own jurisdiction. Where the tribunal rejects a jurisdictional objection, the Act contemplates that the aggrieved party challenges that decision along with the final award under Section 34.
In M/s Tarini Prasad Mohanty v. M/s Sunflag Iron and Steel Company Limited (2026 INSC 566, decided 27 May 2026, Justices J.K. Maheshwari and A.S. Chandurkar), a party had filed a writ petition to set aside the arbitrator's order dismissing its objection. The Supreme Court held that writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to set aside such an order; the remedy lies only under Section 34 after the award.
Why it matters: writ petitions have been used to stall arbitrations midway. This ruling applies a high threshold and keeps the tribunal free to proceed to an award without interruption.
The practical takeaway: raise jurisdictional objections early and clearly before the tribunal, build the record, and preserve them for the Section 34 stage — do not plan on a mid-arbitration writ as a shortcut.
This note summarises the reported judgment for general information and is not legal advice on any specific matter.