The Supreme Court has ruled that once an arbitrator is appointed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the arbitration process must continue without interruption. The Court held that there is no provision that allows review, recall, or appeal against an order appointing an arbitrator, and any judicial attempt to reopen such an order would undermine the intent of the legislation.
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan addressed whether the Patna High Court was justified in entertaining proceedings that sought reconsideration of a Section 11 appointment order. The dispute reached the Supreme Court after the High Court effectively reopened the appointment process by entertaining a petition challenging its earlier order.
The appellant argued that Section 11 serves only to constitute the arbitral tribunal and that once an arbitrator is appointed, the courts have no authority to revisit the issue. They relied on the 2015 and 2019 amendments that significantly limited judicial intervention at the referral stage.
The respondents claimed that High Courts should retain limited powers to correct appointments where there is an apparent legal error or a risk of serious injustice.
Rejecting that reasoning, the Supreme Court stated that the Arbitration Act intentionally excludes any mechanism for reviewing Section 11 orders. The Court said that reopening appointments would lead to unnecessary litigation and delay, contrary to the goal of enabling efficient arbitration. It added that once an arbitrator is appointed, objections about jurisdiction or procedural concerns must be raised before the tribunal itself under Section 16.
The bench clarified that the absence of a review mechanism is deliberate legislative design and that even claims of substantial error cannot justify judicial reconsideration. It emphasized that party autonomy and minimal court interference are core principles of the Act, reinforced through Section 5.
The Court held that the Patna High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the challenge and restored the matter to proceed before the appointed arbitrator.
Case Reference:
Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited & Others
SLP (C) No. 4211 of 2025
