IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

CM-2568-CII-2026 in/and RA-CR-18-2026 in ARB-488-2025 Date of Decision: 13.02.2026 ****

North Star Towers Private Limited and another ..... Applicants Versus Rajbir and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present: Mr. Ajiteshwar Singh, Advocate for the applicant.

****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI , J . (ORAL)

CM-2568-CII-2026 Allowed as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions.

RA-CR-18-2026

1. The present application has been filed under Order XLVII, Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking review of the error apparent on the face of record in the final order passed by this Court on 12.01.2026.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant had filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) before this Court seeking appointment of an Arbitrator. This Court by way of the final order dated 12.01.2026 vide Annexure P-11 allowed the aforesaid application and appointed an Arbitrator, who is a retired Additional District & Sessions Judge, residing at Mohali. He further submitted that the only reason for filing of the present review application is that the seat of the arbitration is Gurugram and therefore, a fresh Arbitrator be appointed, who is located at Gurugram.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant.

4. When the application under Section 11(6) of the Act was filed, the same was filed due to failure of normal course of procedure or mechanism so decided between the parties and therefore, this Court in exercise of powers under Section 11(6) of the Act had appointed an Arbitrator. It is a settled law that the appointment of an Arbitrator in exercise of High Court’s powers under Section 11 of the Act is a judicial function and once an order has been passed under Section 11 of the Act, the Court becomes functus officio.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant during the course of argument has himself referred to a latest judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. through its authorised signatory Yogesh Dalal Vs. Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited and others” 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2578 and even while referring to the same, he so submitted that this Court should still exercise its powers to review the aforesaid final order. It is very surprising that even after knowing the law, learned counsel has still insisted on review of the final order passed by this Court under Setion 11 of the Act.

6. In the aforesaid judgment, a specific issue was framed in Para No.11 which is as follows:-

“11. Issue No.1 Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to review its earlier order passed under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act, and whether such exercise of power was valid in law.”

7. The aforesaid question so framed was answered in Paras No.11.13, 11.14 & 11.15, which are as follows:-

“11.13. Once the Section 11 order had attained finality, the only remedies available to the respondents were to approach this Court under Article 136 or to raise objections under Section 16 before the arbitral tribunal. Having chosen neither route, and having participated in the arbitral proceedings, including joint applications under Section 29A, they were estopped from reopening the matter through review. A later judgment cannot revive a concluded cause of action.

11.14. As emphasized in BSNL v. Nortel Networks (India) (P) Ltd (supra), courts must resist "attempts to re-enter through the back door what the statute has shut through the front door". Section 11 is intended to trigger arbitration, not to create multiple stages of judicial reconsideration.

11.15. For the reasons discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that the High Court did not have the jurisdiction to reopen or review its earlier order passed under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act. Once the appointment was made, the court became functus officio an