Appointment of Arbitrator Under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act
When a respondent refuses to appoint an arbitrator despite a valid invocation notice, the petitioner moves under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondent often resists the petition by contending that the claims are ex facie time-barred, the agreement is unstamped, or no valid arbitration agreement exists. The core legal question is how deep the referral court must go into these objections at the pre-arbitral stage.
Courts have consistently narrowed the scope of inquiry at the Section 11 stage to a prima facie examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement. The Supreme Court has clarified that issues of limitation and stamping are ordinarily left to the arbitral tribunal. The holdings in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & ANR.C (India) Ltd. v. HSCC (India) Ltd and Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority guide this approach, while the court must ensure the petition is not a device to revive a dead claim.
The leading cases
12 judgments · 12 Supreme Court · most-cited first
What LexPilot's research engine returns for this question, ranked by court and how often each judgment has been cited since. Read the full judgment before you rely on a holding.
- 1
Tata Cellular v. Union of India
1994INSC283Supreme Court · 1994cited 2,240 times
The Supreme Court held that judicial review is concerned with the legality of the decision-making process, not the merits. While the government has freedom of contract, decisions must be free from arbitrariness, bias…
- 2
Shayara Bano v. Union of India and Others
2017 INSC 785Supreme Court · 2017cited 2,090 times
By a majority of 3:2, the practice of talaq-e-biddat is set aside. Per Nariman J.: Triple talaq is not an essential religious practice under Art. 25; the 1937 Act, as a pre-constitutional law recognising and enforcing…
- 3
M/S. Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd.
2001 INSC 255Supreme Court · 2001cited 1,080 times
A foreign award given after the commencement of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even if the arbitration proceedings commenced prior to the Act, is enforceable under the Act. The Act, being a continuation of…
- 4
Mallikarjun Kodagali (dead) Represented through Legal Representatives v. the State of Karnataka & Ors.
2018 INSC 969Supreme Court · 2018cited 972 times
Per Lokur J (majority, for himself and Nazeer J): The significant date is the date of the order of acquittal, not the date of the alleged offence; the victim's cause of action arises only on acquittal; an acquittal…
- 5
Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract & Leasing, Kota v. M/S. Shukla & Brothers
2010 INSC 209Supreme Court · 2010cited 887 times
Recording of reasons is an indispensable part of the basic rule of law and constitutes an unqualified, mandatory obligation of courts — not merely a qualified duty. Courts must record reasons both at admission stage…
- 6
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd v. Saw Pipes Ltd
2003INSC241Supreme Court · 2003cited 750 times
The Supreme Court held that an arbitral award can be set aside under Section 34 if it is patently illegal, in contravention of substantive law, or the terms of the contract. The phrase 'Public Policy of India' should…
- 7
Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority
2014 INSC 809Supreme Court · 2014cited 731 times
Appeal allowed. An arbitral award governed by Part I can be set aside only on the grounds in s. 34(2) and (3); the grounds in s. 34(2)(a) do not go to the merits. "Public policy of India" covers four heads —…
- 8
M/S Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
2021 INSC 266Supreme Court · 2021cited 694 times
1. The Joint Commissioner acted as a delegate of the Commissioner under s. 5(3); an appeal under s. 107(1) was not available against his order; the writ petition under Art. 226 was maintainable and was the only remedy…
- 9
Basawaraj & Anr. v. the Spl. Land Acquisition Officer
2013 INSC 551Supreme Court · 2013cited 682 times
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the High Court was justified in dismissing the time-barred appeals. The delay of 5-1/2 years was inordinate, and the explanation of one appellant's illness did not…
- 10
Perkins Eastman Architects Dpc & ANR.C (india) Ltd. v. Hscc (india) Ltd
2019 INSC 1285Supreme Court · 2019cited 679 times
Application allowed. (1) Perkins Eastman, the lead member of the consortium, having its registered office in New York satisfies s. 2(1)(f); the arbitration is an International Commercial Arbitration and the application…
- 11
Union of India & Anr. v. Tarsem Singh & Ors.
2019 INSC 996Supreme Court · 2019cited 673 times
Section 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956 is unconstitutional to the extent it excludes solatium and interest from compensation for compulsory acquisition. The 1997 Amendment Act, whose object was solely to speed…
- 12
N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy
1998 INSC 345Supreme Court · 1998cited 672 times
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in upsetting the trial court's order condoning the delay. The explanation for the delay was satisfactory, and the appellant's conduct did not warrant being castigated as…
Frequently asked questions
Can a Section 11 petition be resisted on the ground that the claims are time-barred?
The referral court will examine whether the claims are ex facie or patently time-barred on the face of the petition and the record. If the bar of limitation is not manifest and requires a deeper inquiry into facts or evidence, the issue is left to the arbitral tribunal. The court ensures that the petition is not used to resurrect a dead claim.
What is the effect of an unstamped or insufficiently stamped arbitration agreement at the Section 11 stage?
An objection based on insufficient stamping does not nullify the existence of the arbitration agreement. The court may proceed to appoint an arbitrator, leaving the tribunal or the appropriate authority to deal with the stamping objection. The primary focus remains on whether a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties.
What is the exact scope of inquiry by the court under Section 11?
The court's jurisdiction is limited to a prima facie determination of the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. It does not conduct a mini-trial on the merits of the dispute. Complex questions of fact, contractual interpretation, or the tenability of claims are reserved for the arbitral tribunal once constituted.
Free trial · Research assistance, not legal advice — always read the judgment before you rely on it.
More on commercial, arbitration & insolvency
- Interim Relief Under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- Setting Aside an Arbitral Award Under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act
- Injunction Against Invocation of a Bank Guarantee
- Admission of a Section 7 IBC Application by a Financial Creditor
- Section 9 IBC — Operational Creditor and Pre-Existing Dispute
- Oppression and Mismanagement under Sections 241-242 of the Companies Act 2013
- Consumer Complaint Against Builder for Delayed Possession