Supreme Court of India· 08 September 2026

Can a writ appellate court prescribe in advance the manner of, or place constraints upon, the Arbitral Tribunal's adjudication under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?

M/s. GVV Constructions v. The Union of India & Ors

2026 INSC 976 · SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 7338 OF 2026
Coram: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · Justice Alok Aradhe

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow s.16 Arbitration and Conciliatio…📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

A writ appellate court cannot prescribe in advance the manner of, or place constraints upon, the Arbitral Tribunal's adjudication under Section 16.

No. A writ appellate court, whose task is confined to testing the correctness of the writ court's order, cannot prescribe in advance the touchstone by which the Arbitral Tribunal is to adjudicate a claim, or otherwise circumscribe the width of the Tribunal's enquiry into its own jurisdiction under Section 16. (¶19, 20)

Headnote

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s.16, s.11(6A) — Constitution of India, Art.226 — Kompetenz-kompetenz — Excepted matters — Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s.16 — Excepted matters — Tribunal's competence — Held: A claim falling within the 'excepted matters' clause of a works contract is decided by the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16, not by a court exercising Section 11 or Article 226 jurisdiction. (¶18) s.11(6A) — Eye of the needle standard — When in doubt, refer — Held further: A court examining a Section 11 application must refer the parties to arbitration unless it is manifestly and ex facie certain the arbitration agreement is non-existent, invalid, or the dispute non-arbitrable. (¶16) Writ appellate jurisdiction — No pre-determination of Tribunal's jurisdiction — Held further: A writ appellate court cannot prescribe in advance the manner of, or place constraints upon, the Arbitral Tribunal's adjudication of its own jurisdiction under Section 16. Appeal disposed of accordingly. (¶19, 20, 22)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 19If a court exercising the power of appointment under Section 11(6A) has no jurisdiction to enter upon, still less to pre- determine, the touchstone by reference to which the Arbitral Tribunal is to adjudicate a claim said to fall within an “excepted matters” clause, a writ appellate court, whose task was confined to testing the correctness of the learned Single Judge’s disposal of a writ petition impugning a termination notice, had, by parity of reasoning and a fortiori, no such jurisdiction. The direction that the Arbitrator “is at liberty to decide the claim of the appellant strictly in accordance with the terms of the contract agreed upon between the parties”, whatever the intention behind it, has the inevitable effect of circumscribing the width of the Arbitrator’s enquiry, including his authority under Section 16 to rule upon the scope of his own jurisdiction over the dispute relating to termination.

Paragraph 20Whether the dispute regarding termination is, in whole or in part, an “excepted matter” outside the Arbitrator's jurisdiction, and, if so, what remedy survives to the appellant in that behalf, are questions that Section 16 of the Act commits to the Arbitrator in the first instance. It was not open to the Division Bench, in the exercise of its writ appellate jurisdiction, to prescribe in advance the manner of, or to place constraints upon, that adjudication. For yet another reason, the Division Bench ought not to have made such an observation as the issue of arbitrability of termination of agreement was not an issue before it. Accordingly, the issue is answered.

Acts & Sections

s.16 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996s.11(6A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996Art.226 Constitution of India

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of M/s. GVV Constructions v. The Union of India & Ors — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Is a claim falling within the 'excepted matters' clause of a works contract decided by the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, not by the Court?Must a court examining an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 refer the parties to arbitration unless it is manifestly and ex facie certain the dispute is non-arbitrable?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections