Delhi High Court sets aside arbitrator appointment, says Supreme Court has power in international arbitration

The Delhi High Court has set aside a Single Judge’s order appointing a retired Supreme Court judge as sole arbitrator in a commercial dispute, holding that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to make such an appointment in an international commercial arbitration. The Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Vinod Kumar observed that only the Supreme Court can appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when the arbitration qualifies as international.

The dispute arose between August Purple Services Private Limited and Axis Trustee Services Limited, with arbitration proceedings involving Ace Turtle Global Pte Ltd, a company based in Singapore. Axis Trustee had initially approached the High Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act for interim relief. On July 13, 2026, the Single Judge granted ad interim relief directing August Purple not to utilize receivables received since April 27, 2026, and to disclose and transfer the monies.

August Purple challenged this order before a Division Bench, which directed the company to file a stay vacation application before the Single Judge. Accordingly, August Purple filed an application. However, on July 28, 2026, instead of deciding that application, the Single Judge appointed a retired Supreme Court judge as the sole arbitrator and directed that the pending Section 9 proceedings be treated as an application under Section 17 before the arbitrator.

Both Sides Agree on International Character

August Purple appealed this order. Before the Division Bench, both sides agreed that the arbitration constituted an international commercial arbitration under Section 2(1)(f) of the Act because Ace Turtle Global Pte Ltd is based in Singapore. Consequently, the High Court could not have appointed the arbitrator.

The court recorded: “The contention that the arbitration would be an international commercial arbitration is predicated on the fact that one of the parties to the arbitral proceedings, viz. Ace Turtle Global Pte Ltd, is based in Singapore. We find this to be correct. In any case, on the fact that the arbitration would be an international commercial arbitration, learned Counsel are, as we have already noted, ad idem.”

Adding further, the Bench remarked: “That being so, this Court could not have appointed an arbitrator to arbitrate on the dispute.”

A Missed Opportunity to Avoid Litigation

The court also observed that the litigation might have been avoided had the jurisdictional position been brought to the Single Judge’s notice earlier. The respondent was represented by advocates Ankur Kashyap, Ayush Aggarwala, Rohit Rajershi, Aman Bajaj, Purushartha Singh and Siddharth Dua.

Decision and Implications

Accordingly, the Division Bench set aside the July 28 order, restored August Purple’s application seeking vacation of the interim order, and directed the Single Judge to decide the application afresh on merits, uninfluenced by the order that had been set aside. The parties have been directed to appear before the Single Judge on August 25, 2026.

The ruling reaffirms the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in appointing arbitrators for international commercial arbitrations, drawing a clear jurisdictional line between the High Court and the Supreme Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.