Extent of judicial intervention
Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 deals with extent of judicial intervention. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, in matters governed by this Part, no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in this Part. The Act came into force on 22 Aug 1996.
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, in matters governed by this Part, no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in this Part.
Section 5, The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act 26 of 1996).
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Amazon. Com Nv Investment Holdings LLC vs Future Retail Limited
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when properly read in light of its principles of party autonomy (Sections 2(6), 2(8), 19(2)), definition of arbitration (Section 2(1)(a) including arbitration administered by permanent arbitral institutions), and the commencement of arbitral proceedings (Section 21 read with institutional rules), provides that an Emergency Arbitrator's award delivered under institutional rules such as the Singapore International Arbitration Centre Rules is an 'order' under Section 17(1) of the Act. Such orders are enforceable under Section 17(2) as if they were orders of a court. No appeal lies against an order passed under Section 17(2) in enforcement of an Emergency Arbitrator's award, either under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act or under the Code of Civil Procedure, as Section 37 provides an exhaustive and exclusive remedy for appeals in arbitration matters, and Section 37(2)(b) provides appeals only for orders granting or refusing interim measures under Section 17(1), not for enforcement proceedings under Section 17(2). A party that has agreed to be governed by institutional arbitration rules cannot subsequently characterize an Emergency Arbitrator's award as a nullity and ignore it until such award is formally set aside through proper procedures, as doing so violates the rule of law and fundamental principles of obedience to court orders.
On this section: Non-obstante clause stating that in matters governed by Part I of the Act, no judicial authority shall intervene except where provided in that Part. Used to establish that the Arbitration Act is a self-contained code favoring arbitration over court intervention.
-
A. Ayyasamy vs A. Paramasivam
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Mere allegations of fraud, simpliciter, are insufficient to exclude a dispute from arbitration. A court may refuse to refer a dispute to arbitration on the ground of fraud only where it finds that there are very serious allegations of fraud which: (1) make a virtual case of criminal offence, or (2) are so complicated that they can be decided only by a civil court on appreciation of voluminous evidence, or (3) involve serious allegations of forgery/fabrication of documents in support of the fraud plea, or (4) the fraud is alleged against the arbitration provision itself, or (5) the fraud is of such nature that it permeates the entire contract including the arbitration clause, meaning the fraud goes to the validity of the entire contract or the arbitration clause itself. Where fraud allegations concern simple matters of accounts touching upon internal affairs of the party inter se with no public domain implication, arbitration clause need not be avoided and parties shall be relegated to arbitration. The focus of the court under Section 8 must be on whether the nature of the dispute is such that it cannot be referred to arbitration, not on whether the court has jurisdiction.
On this section: Non-obstante clause providing clear message that there should not be any judicial intervention at the stage when arbitration proceedings are triggered by existence of arbitration agreement
-
Ntpc Limited vs Afcons R. N. Shetty and Co. Pvt. LTD Jv
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Arbitrators do not have unilateral power to determine their own fees. Where parties have fixed fees by agreement or court has fixed fees by order, arbitrators are bound by such fees. Where no agreement or court order exists, arbitrators may fix reasonable fees only after transparent consultation with parties at preliminary stage, and such fees are subject to court review for reasonableness under Section 39. The Fourth Schedule is binding on ad hoc arbitrations post-Amendment Act 2019. The term 'sum in dispute' in Fourth Schedule refers to aggregate of claim and counter-claim. The ceiling of Rs. 30 lakhs in Serial No. 6 applies to total fee, not just variable component. The fee is per individual arbitrator, not per tribunal. Arbitrators cannot charge separate fees for claims and counter-claims; they must charge single fee based on aggregate sum in dispute.
On this section: Extent of judicial intervention - no judicial authority shall intervene except where provided in the Act
-
Amazon. Com Nv Investment Holdings LLC vs Future Coupons Private Limited
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Full party autonomy is given by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to have a dispute decided in accordance with institutional rules which can include Emergency Arbitrators delivering interim orders, described as 'awards'. Such orders are an important step in aid of decongesting the civil courts and affording expeditious interim relief to the parties. Such orders are referable to and are made under Section 17(1) of the Arbitration Act. Additionally, no appeal lies under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act against an order of enforcement of an Emergency Arbitrator's order made under Section 17(2) of the Act, as Section 37 provides an exhaustive code for appeals from orders under the Arbitration Act, and the legal fiction created by Section 17(2) is limited to enforcement purposes only and does not extend to appellate jurisdiction.
On this section: Demonstrates that Arbitration Act is favored statute overriding other laws for arbitration matters, supporting purposive interpretation favoring arbitration
-
Union of India vs Tantia Construction Pvt. LTD
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a government contract undergoes such substantial alteration in design that it transforms into a completely new project different from the original tender scope, the contractor cannot be compelled to execute such fundamentally altered work as a variation of the original contract, particularly when: (1) the contractor has clearly communicated unwillingness to undertake the new work; (2) the government itself recognized the new work as separate by floating independent tender therefor; (3) the cost increase is substantial (from Rs. 19.11 crores to Rs. 36 crores); and (4) the variation is not mere quantity change but fundamental design alteration. Contract termination based on alleged contractor's obligation to execute such substantially altered work is unjustified and can be set aside by writ petition. Further, writ jurisdiction is not barred by existence of arbitration clause when manifest injustice and constitutional principles are involved.
On this section: Cited regarding minimal interference by regular courts in arbitration matters; however, Court held that this section does not create absolute bar to writ jurisdiction when constitutional principles or manifest injustice is involved
-
Narayan Prasad Lohia vs Nikunj Kumar Lohia
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The prohibition on even number of arbitrators under Section 10 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 is a derogable provision. When read conjointly with Section 16, which permits parties to challenge tribunal composition before the arbitral tribunal itself (not later than submission of statement of defence), the requirement of odd number of arbitrators becomes derogable. A party who knowingly agrees to an even number of arbitrators and participates in the arbitration proceedings without raising an objection to the tribunal composition within the prescribed timeline under Section 16(2) is deemed to have waived the right to object under Section 4. Consequently, an arbitral award made by two arbitrators cannot be set aside merely on the ground that it violates Section 10 if the composition was in accordance with the agreement of the parties and no objection was raised before the arbitral tribunal. Section 34(2)(a)(v) permits setting aside an award on grounds of improper composition only if the composition was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties.
On this section: Cited to establish the principle that judicial authorities should not intervene in arbitration except where specifically provided in the Act, supporting the minimalist approach to court intervention.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 5
What have the courts held on Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act?
Amazon. Com Nv Investment Holdings LLC vs Future Retail Limited (06 Aug 2021) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Non-obstante clause stating that in matters governed by Part I of the Act, no judicial authority shall intervene except where provided in that Part. Used to establish that the Arbitration Act is a self-contained code favoring arbitration over court intervention. Another 5 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2002 to 2022.
How do I find court cases under Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Arbitration Act 5, section 5 Arbitration Act, section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. People searching for it also type arbitration act 12 5 and arbitration act chap 5 01. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 6 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Amazon. Com Nv Investment Holdings LLC vs Future Retail Limited (06 Aug 2021).
When did Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act come into force?
Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, cited as Arbitration Act 5, came into force on 22 Aug 1996, having been enacted on 16 Aug 1996. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 8. Power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement1029 words
- 11. Appointment of arbitrators1027 words
- 34. Application for setting aside arbitral awards861 words
- 2. Definitions732 words
- 29A. Time limit for arbitral award635 words
- 57. Conditions for enforcement of foreign awards519 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.