Sayla Realtors v. Saurashtra CHS Ltd
Review of Arbitrator Appointment: Applicability of Section 11(3-A) of the Arbitration Act, 1996 and Effect of the 2019 Amendment Act; High Court's Jurisdiction after Appointment.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:24850
Decision Date: 10-12-2025
List of Laws
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019; Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(3-A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 13 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Functus Officio
- Facts: Sayla Realtors filed a review petition challenging the appointment of an arbitrator, arguing that the arbitrator was not from the panel maintained by the Court under Section 11(3-A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act"). They contended their consent was limited to arbitrators from that panel. The initial order appointing the arbitrator was not challenged via a Special Leave Petition.
- Procedural Posture: The case is a review petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, challenging an earlier order appointing an arbitrator. The petitioner seeks review based on the alleged non-applicability of Section 11(3-A) and the arbitrator's appointment from outside the court's panel.
- Issue: Is the review petition maintainable, considering the challenge to the arbitrator's appointment based on Section 11(3-A) of the Arbitration Act, and given the Supreme Court's ruling in HCC vs. Bihar regarding the review of orders under Section 11(6)? Further, is Section 11(3-A) of the Arbitration Act in force, and what is the effect of the 2019 Amendment Act on the appointment of arbitrators?
- Holding: The review petition is dismissed. The Court held that Section 11(3-A) of the Arbitration Act is not in force, and the review petition is misconceived. The Court also noted that a belated review petition cannot be filed after arbitration has commenced, citing HCC vs. Bihar.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the contention regarding the applicability of Section 11(3-A) is fallacious because this section has not been brought into force by the Central Government through official notification. The 2019 Amendment Act, while in force, requires separate notification for individual provisions. The reference to "Section 11" in the 2019 Notification pertains to Section 11 of the 2019 Amendment Act itself, which amends Section 45 of the Arbitration Act, and not Section 11 of the principal Act. The court also relied on HCC vs. Bihar, stating that a High Court lacks jurisdiction to review an order passed earlier under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act once the appointment is made, becoming functus officio. The court emphasized that allegations about the arbitrator's independence and impartiality should be raised before the arbitrator under Sections 12 and 13 of the Arbitration Act.
🔒 For Members Only