Back
Next 
2024-01-16
Subject:
O R D E R
1 By the impugned order dated 3 March 2023, the High Court of Delhi has allowed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and referred the parties to arbitration by a sole arbitrator.
2 On 21 April 2023, this Court directed that the proceedings be listed immediately after the decision of the Constitution Bench in Cox and Kings Ltd vs SAP India Private Limited and Another1 . The judgment of the Constitution Bench has been delivered on 6 December 2023 and is reported as 2023 SCC Online SC 1634.
3 We have heard Mr Ritin Rai, senior counsel for the petitioner and Dr S Muralidhar, senior counsel for the first respondent. The second respondent, the Court is informed, has been deleted from the array of parties in the course of the arbitration proceedings.
4 The petitioner has instituted an application under Section 16 before the sole arbitrator. On 6 January 2024 when the proceedings were listed before the learned sole arbitrator, the petitioner stated that a clarification would be 1 Arbitration Petition No 38 of 2020 sought before this Court in the present proceedings.
5 Mr Ritin Rai, senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all that needs to be clarified by this Court is that it would be open to the petitioner to raise all appropriate defenses before the sole arbitrator bearing in mind the parameters which have been laid down in the judgment of the Constitution Bench bearing on the Group of Companies doctrine.
6 Dr S Muralidhar, senior counsel for the first respondent submits that the first respondent would also urge all appropriate submissions in that regard before the sole arbitrator.
7 Bearing in mind the above submissions, we clarify that the learned sole arbitrator may decide on the application under Section 16 uninfluenced by the observations contained in the impugned order dated 3 March 2023 which is confined only to the purpose of deciding the petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.
8 Subject to the above clarification, the Special Leave Petitions are disposed of.
9 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar
No Imminent Threat of Infringement Bars Ex-Parte Injunction in Trademark Suit: Belagavi Principal District Court
12 Feb 2026
Centre Justifies Wangchuk Detention as Ladakh Violence Halting Measure
12 Feb 2026
Court Rejects Selective Arbitration Under Section 21
12 Feb 2026
Family Judge Exposes Weaponized Litigation in Custody Dispute
14 Feb 2026
Centre Notifies Two High Court Chief Justice Appointments
16 Feb 2026
Deep Chandra Joshi Appointed Acting NCLT President
16 Feb 2026
Debunking the Myth That Indians Lack Privacy Concepts
16 Feb 2026
Whose View Is It Anyway? Juniors Uncredited
16 Feb 2026
Private Property Disputes Not Human Rights Violations; HRC Lacks Jurisdiction Under PHRA: Gujarat HC
16 Feb 2026
An arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction is limited by the terms of the arbitration agreement between the parties. If the claims exceed the threshold specified in the agreement, arbitration is not the app....
Premature petitions under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, are not maintainable when a Sole Arbitrator has already been appointed, and unresponsiveness of the current Arbitra....
The existence of an arbitration clause allows a party to seek court assistance for appointing an arbitrator when no consensus exists, with other disputes to be resolved by the arbitrator.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
