Latest JudgementArbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996
Fab Tech Works & Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs Savvology Games Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2025
This decision clarifies the procedural relationship between Sections 9 and 11, underlining that interim measures can coexist with proceedings to appoint an arbitrator.
Bombay High Court·31 March 2025
Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996
Judgement Details
Court
Bombay High Court
Date of Decision
31 March 2025
Judges
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
- The Applicant, Fab Tech Works & Constructions Pvt. Ltd., filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate disputes under an Investment Agreement with Savvology Games Pvt. Ltd..
- The Respondent contested the invocation of arbitration and argued that Section 9 (interim relief) and Section 11 (appointment of an arbitrator) proceedings cannot run simultaneously.
- The Applicant had previously obtained interim relief under Section 9 in July 2024, which included a requirement for the Respondent to disclose specific information.
- The Respondent complied with the order by submitting Exhibit 'F' that contained a brief disclosure (only three lines), which the Applicant argued was insufficient and did not meet the requirements of the court’s order.
- The Applicant alleged that the Respondent’s partial compliance with the disclosure order was a misrepresentation, leading to a dispute about the adequacy of the Exhibit 'F' submission.
Issues
- Whether the invocation of Section 9 and Section 11 constitutes parallel proceedings?
- Whether the interim relief granted under Section 9 can be challenged on grounds of misrepresentation?
- Whether the High Court's jurisdiction extends to deciding substantive issues about the arbitration agreement?
Held
- Section 9 proceedings (interim relief) and Section 11 proceedings (appointment of arbitrator) can proceed simultaneously.
- Section 9 is meant for temporary protection, while Section 11 concerns the appointment of an arbitrator, which is distinct from the substantive issues in dispute.
- The Respondent failed to challenge the Section 9 order effectively.
- The matter was referred to arbitration with Mandar Soman appointed as the sole arbitrator.
Analysis
- Section 9 provides interim relief, such as safeguarding the subject matter of the dispute, whereas Section 11 only deals with the appointment of an arbitrator when there is a dispute regarding the arbitration agreement.
- The High Court emphasized that these provisions are meant to function independently, and their invocation does not constitute parallel proceedings.
- The Court's clarification on Section 11(6A) reinforces the limited role of the court at the stage of appointing an arbitrator, leaving questions about the scope and validity of disputes to the arbitral tribunal under Section 16.
- This decision clarifies the procedural relationship between Sections 9 and 11, underlining that interim measures can coexist with proceedings to appoint an arbitrator.
- The Court’s ruling supports the autonomy of the arbitral process and emphasizes that substantive disputes should be adjudicated by the arbitrator, not the court.