- with readers working within the Law Firm industries
- within International Law, Immigration and Real Estate and Construction topic(s)
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Rajiv Gaddh v. Subodh Parkash, 2026 INSC 302 reiterated that a party cannot initiate proceedings for appointment of an arbitral tribunal under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) after abandoning earlier arbitration proceedings relying on Order 23, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
In the facts, disputes arose between Rajiv Gaddh, Subodh Parkash and others pursuant to a 2013 agreement under which they agreed to jointly invest in land in Hoshiarpur, Punjab. Subodh Parkash initiated arbitration proceedings in 2015 by way of an application for appointment of an arbitral tribunal under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act and participated in the arbitration proceedings intermittently till 2019.By way of a communication dated 29 August 2019, Subodh Parkash unequivocally stated that he would not participate further in the arbitration proceedings and alleged bias against the arbitrator. The arbitral proceedings culminated in an Award in 2020, which was challenged by Subodh Parkash.
Subsequently, in 2021, Subodh Parkash again sought to initiate arbitration proceedings and applied to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for appointment of an arbitral tribunal. In 2024, the High Court appointed an arbitrator, which was challenged by Rajiv Gaddh before the Supreme Court.
The principal questions before the Court were:
- Whether abandonment of earlier arbitration proceedings bars subsequent proceedings under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act for appointment of an arbitral tribunal on the same cause of action?
- Whether the principles analogous to Order 23 Rule 1 CPC apply to proceedings under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act for appointment of an arbitral tribunal?
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and held that the subsequent proceedings for appointment of an arbitral tribunal were not maintainable.
The Supreme Court relied on HPCL Bio-Fuels v Shahaji, 2024 SCC OnLine 3190 and reiterated that the principles underlying Order 23 Rule 1 are applicable to proceedings for appointment of an arbitral tribunal under the Arbitration Act: specifically, the prohibition against instituting fresh proceedings after withdrawal or abandonment without liberty. The Supreme Court in HPCL Bio-Fuels (supra) held that in the absence of any liberty granted at the time of withdrawal of the first application, a fresh application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act for appointment of an arbitral tribunal is not maintainable. The Court held that “Order 23 Rule 1 is not intended to enable the plaintiff to get a chance to commence litigation afresh in order to avoid the results of his previous suit, or to engage in multiple proceedings with the motive of bench-hunting” and observed that “these principles being in the nature of public policy bring efficiency and certainty to the administration of justice by any court…”
On facts, the Supreme Court found clear evidence of abandonment of claim as Subodh Parkash expressly refused to participate in the arbitral proceedings in 2019 which demonstrated a conscious decision to give up his claim.
The Court noted that “A litigant cannot be permitted to abuse the process of Court or file a fresh proceeding on the same cause of action. The bar contained in Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code which applies to proceedings under Section 11 of the Act is founded on Public Policy.” Accordingly, the Court held that Subodh Parkash’s attempt to initiate arbitration again in 2021 by applying for appointment of an arbitral tribunal was based on the same cause of action and thus barred.
The content of this document does not necessarily reflect the views / position of Khaitan & Co but remain solely those of the author(s). For any further queries or follow up, please contact Khaitan & Co at editors@khaitanco.com.
