Case Note & Summary
The case concerned an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by Vijay Sharma seeking appointment of an arbitrator. The respondents, Vivek Makhija and another, opposed the application on the ground that the issues in the application had already been adjudicated by an order dated January 31, 2022 passed by a Learned Single Judge of the same court. The arbitration agreement's existence was not disputed. The matter was heard at length by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on multiple occasions to consider the objection. The court was required to determine whether the prior order operated as a bar to the appointment of an arbitrator. The judgment text provided is incomplete and does not include the court's final decision or detailed reasoning.
Headnote
A) Arbitration - Appointment of Arbitrator - Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Objection to arbitration on ground of prior adjudication - Respondents resisted appointment of arbitrator on ground that issues involved were already adjudicated by order dated January 31, 2022 passed by the Learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court - The existence of the arbitration agreement was not in dispute - Held that (details not fully extractable from provided text) (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the present application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is barred by the prior adjudication order dated January 31, 2022.
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (05) 29
Arbitration Application No. 123 of 2024
SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.
Mr. Karl Tamboly, Mr. Dinesh Tiwari, Mr. Anish Sharma, Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Application for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Remedy Sought
Appointment of an arbitrator.
Filing Reason
Dispute under an arbitration agreement; existence of agreement not disputed, but respondents resisted proceeding to arbitration.
Previous Decisions
Order dated January 31, 2022 passed by the Learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, claimed by respondents to have adjudicated the issues.
Issues
Whether the present application under Section 11 is barred by the order dated January 31, 2022.
Submissions/Arguments
Respondents submitted that the issues involved in the application had already been adjudicated by the order dated January 31, 2022, and therefore the application should not be entertained.
Judgment Excerpts
This Application has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”).
The primary objection presented by the Respondents primarily is based on the premise that the issues involved in this Application under Section 11 have already been adjudicated in the past by an order dated January 31, 2022 (“2022 Order”) passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court.
Procedural History
The arbitration application was filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It was heard on multiple occasions to consider the respondents' resistance to proceeding to arbitration. The primary objection was that the issues had already been adjudicated by an order dated January 31, 2022.
Acts & Sections
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: 11
