Case Note & Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 12.01.2021 passed by the Commercial Court at Bangalore in Com.A.A.No.10 of 2021. The impugned order allowed an application (I.A.No.1) filed by the respondents under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator. The petitioners contended that the application was not maintainable as no notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Act had been issued to them. The respondents argued that the application was maintainable and that the Commercial Court had jurisdiction. The High Court examined the provisions of Sections 11(6) and 21 of the Arbitration Act and held that a valid notice under Section 21 is a precondition for invoking the jurisdiction of the court under Section 11(6). Since no such notice was issued, the application was not maintainable. The court quashed the impugned order and allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order of the Commercial Court.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Appointment of Arbitrator - Section 11(6) read with Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Maintainability - The court held that an application under Section 11(6) for appointment of an arbitrator is not maintainable unless a notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 has been issued to the other party. The Commercial Court's order allowing such application without prior notice was quashed. (Paras 1-10)
B) Civil Procedure - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Certiorari - The High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to quash an interlocutory order passed by the Commercial Court which was without jurisdiction. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for appointment of an arbitrator, is maintainable before the Commercial Court without a prior notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Act.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 12.01.2021 passed by the Commercial Court at Bangalore in Com.A.A.No.10 of 2021, and set aside the order allowing I.A.No.1.
Law Points
- Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India
- Commercial Courts Act
- 2015
- maintainability of application for appointment of arbitrator
- pre-arbitration notice requirement
- jurisdiction of Commercial Court
Case Details
2024 LawText (KAR) (12) 72
WP No. 995 of 2021 (GM-RES)
Smt. Sanjana M. for Sri. Pradeed Nayak (for petitioners), Sri. P.D. Surana (for respondents)
Mr. Gaurav K Bhandari, Mr. Bharat K Bhandari, Mrs. Ashu Bhandari
Mr. Bharath Chandrashekhar, Ms. Bindushree C, Mrs. Deepa C
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an interlocutory order passed by the Commercial Court in an arbitration application.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the order dated 12.01.2021 passed by the Commercial Court at Bangalore in Com.A.A.No.10 of 2021, which allowed the respondents' application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator.
Filing Reason
The petitioners challenged the impugned order on the ground that the application under Section 11(6) was not maintainable as no notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Act had been issued to them.
Previous Decisions
The Commercial Court had allowed I.A.No.1 filed by the respondents under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, appointing an arbitrator.
Issues
Whether an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for appointment of an arbitrator, is maintainable before the Commercial Court without a prior notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Act.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the application under Section 11(6) was not maintainable as no notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act was issued to them.
The respondents contended that the application was maintainable and the Commercial Court had jurisdiction to entertain it.
Ratio Decidendi
An application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for appointment of an arbitrator is not maintainable unless a notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Act has been issued to the other party. The Commercial Court's order allowing such application without prior notice is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.
Judgment Excerpts
The Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other writ quashing the order dated 12.01.2021 on interlocutory application I.A.No.1 passed by the Hon’ble Commercial Court at Bangalore in Com.A.A. No.10 of 2021 (“Impugned Order”) (Annexure-A); b. Grant an order of temporary injunction in terms of I.A.No.1 filed in Com.A.A.No.10 of 2021 restraining the Respondents, their agents, employees, or other persons claiming through or under them, from, in
Procedural History
The respondents filed Com.A.A.No.10 of 2021 before the Commercial Court at Bangalore under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator. The Commercial Court allowed I.A.No.1 filed therein by order dated 12.01.2021. The petitioners challenged this order by filing the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was reserved for orders on 27.11.2024 and pronounced on 20.12.2024.
Acts & Sections
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 11(6), Section 21
- Constitution of India: Article 227
- Commercial Courts Act, 2015:
