Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by SAP India Private Limited and Anr., challenging two orders passed by an Arbitral Tribunal rejecting the petitioners’ applications under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Arbitral Tribunal, presided over by Justice Mohit Shah (Retd.), was appointed to adjudicate disputes between SAP India and Cox and Kings Limited.
The dispute centred on the Arbitral Tribunal’s jurisdiction to entertain a claim made by Cox and Kings. The petitioners contended that the claim arose under the SAP Software and License Support Agreement – Order Form 3 (License Agreement – Order Form 3), an agreement under which the arbitration clause had not been invoked. They argued that the Tribunal was appointed only for disputes arising out of the SAP Global Service and Support Agreement – Order Form 1 (Services Agreement – Order Form 1) and the Services General Terms and Conditions Agreement (GTC).
The Arbitral Tribunal, however, interpreted all three agreements—namely, the Services Agreement – Order Form 1, the License Agreement – Order Form 3, and the GTC—and recorded a finding that they formed part of a composite transaction. On this basis, the Tribunal held that it was authorised and empowered to entertain claims arising under all three agreements. Consequently, SAP India’s applications under Section 16 were rejected by orders dated 31 March 2025 and 10 November 2025 (the “impugned orders”).
Mr. Navroz H. Seervai, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners, argued that the Arbitral Tribunal had ex facie usurped jurisdiction which it patently lacked under the agreement pursuant to which it was appointed, and that the impugned orders were perverse.
Opposing the petition, Mr. Hiroo Advani, appearing for the respondent, submitted that no interference was warranted by the Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction and that the petitioners’ remedy lay in challenging the final award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. He contended that an order passed under Section 16 could be interfered with only in exceptionally rare circumstances, which were not made out in the present case.
The Division Bench comprising Justice R.I. Chagla and Justice Farhan P. Dubash concurred with the respondent’s submissions on the limited scope of judicial interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The Court observed:
“The scope of judicial interference by writ courts under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India against orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, including those passed under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is now well settled and needs no debate. It is restricted only to exceptional cases of patent lack of inherent jurisdiction involving perversity, which must stare one in the face.”
The Court further held that since the Arbitral Tribunal had recorded a finding that all three agreements formed part of a composite arrangement between the parties—relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ameet Lalchand Shah v. Rishabh Enterprises—it could not be said, at least at this stage and without the benefit of the final award, that the Tribunal had usurped jurisdiction or acted in excess of jurisdiction vested in it. The Bench also observed that no patent illegality was found in the impugned orders and that interference in writ jurisdiction was therefore unwarranted.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, with the Court clarifying that the petitioners would be entitled to challenge the impugned orders after the final award is passed, in proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Case Details:
- Case Name: SAP India Private Limited & Anr. v. Cox and Kings Limited
- Case Number: Writ Petition (L) No. 39997 of 2025
- Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
- Reserved On: 17 December 2025
- Pronounced On: 23 December 2025
- Coram: Justice R.I. Chagla and Justice Farhan P. Dubash
Advocates for the Petitioners:
Mr. Navroz H. Seervai, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Yohaann Limathwalla, Mr. Farhad Sorabjee, Mr. Pratik Pawar, Ms. Shanaya Cyrus Irani, and Mr. Siddhesh S. Pradhan, instructed by J. Sagar Associates
Advocates for the Respondent:
Mr. Hiroo Advani, with Mr. Navdeep Dahiya, Ms. Janhavi Sakalkar, and Mr. Esham Karanjikar, instructed by Advani Law LLP
![Husband Can Also Claim Alimony/Maintenance From Wife: Bombay High Court Orders Woman To Pay Alimony To Ex-Husband [Read Order]](/secure/uploads/2022/04/lj_2823_Divorce.jpg)
