RAJURAM SAWAJI PUROHIT v. THE SHANDAR INTERRIOR PRIVATE LIMITED
High Court of Bombay, Bombay (Original)
2025:BHC-OS:18469
Clarifies the limited scope of judicial intervention under Section 11 and the powers of the arbitral tribunal.
Legal Discussion:
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: The judgment extensively discusses several sections of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 11 is central, as the application concerns the appointment of an arbitrator. The court notes its limited jurisdiction under Section 11, stating it should only examine the existence of an arbitration agreement, citing "Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Stamp Act, 1899, in Re (2024) 6 SCC 1" and "SBI General Insurance Company Vs. Krish Spinning, (2025) 3 SCC (Civ) 567". The judgment refers to Section 11(6) and the limited scope of the court's power post the 2015 amendment, citing "Duro Felguera, S.A. v. Gangavaram Port Ltd., (2017) 9 SCC 729". It also mentions Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1), regarding the arbitrator's disclosure statement. Section 21 is mentioned concerning the requirement of a fresh notice invoking arbitration. Section 34 is discussed in the context of setting aside the initial award and the court's inability to modify the award, necessitating de novo arbitration. Section 37 is mentioned concerning the pending appeals and their potential impact on the current application. The judgment also references Section 5, noting its limitation on courts dealing with substantive objections at the referral or appointment stage. Section 16 is discussed in relation to the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction and the principle of minimum judicial interference. The Fourth Schedule of the Act is referenced regarding arbitrator's fees.
- Bombay High Court (Fee Payable to Arbitrators) Rules, 2018: The judgment mentions that the fees of the sole arbitrator shall be as per the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act read with the Bombay High Court (Fee Payable to Arbitrators) Rules, 2018.
- Stamp Act, 1899: The judgment refers to the "Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under A&C Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re (2024) 6 SCC 1", emphasizing the limited scope of judicial interference in a Section 11 application.
- General Principles of Law (Res Judicata, Limitation): The judgment touches upon the principles of res judicata and limitation. The respondent argued that the applicant's claim was time-barred and that there cannot be multiple rounds of litigation on the same issue. However, the court stated that the determination of whether the claims are time-barred or barred by res judicata should be left to the arbitrator.
List of Laws: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Bombay High Court (Fee Payable to Arbitrators) Rules, 2018; Stamp Act, 1899; General Principles of Law (Res Judicata, Limitation)