Court Rules Itself Functus Officio; Petitioners' Request Denied Due to Significant Progress in Arbitration
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has rejected applications seeking a joint trial of two arbitration proceedings between Deepak Agarwal and Anubhav Sharma. The judgment, delivered by Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, underscored the principle that once arbitrators are appointed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the court becomes functus officio, thereby limiting judicial interference in arbitration matters.
Deepak Agarwal and another petitioner had approached the court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, requesting a joint trial of arbitration proceedings DIAC/10296/02-25 and DIAC/10297/02-25 to avoid conflicting judgments. However, the applications were deemed belated as the arbitration proceedings had significantly advanced to the evidence stage.
Justice Shankar noted that the appointments of Mr. Anubhav Bhasin and Mr. Swastik Singh as arbitrators had already attained finality through orders dated February 4, 2025. The court emphasized that it could no longer reopen or review these orders, as doing so would contravene the objective of minimal judicial interference in arbitration, which is aimed at expeditious resolution of disputes.
The respondent's counsel argued against the applications, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Limited which supports the notion that courts must avoid re-entering matters through judicial reconsideration once arbitration is triggered. The respondent's counsel also highlighted the availability of Rule 6 of the DIAC Rules for consolidation, an option the petitioners had not pursued.
The court acknowledged the progression of the arbitration proceedings, noting that pleadings had been completed and issues framed, making it inadvisable to alter the status quo at such a late stage. However, Justice Shankar clarified that parties could request arbitrators to hold hearings in tandem, subject to mutual convenience, without any court directive on procedural conduct.
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court disposed of the applications, reaffirming the principle of limited court intervention post the appointment of arbitrators, thereby upholding the autonomy of the arbitral process.
Bottom Line:
Arbitration proceedings - Applications seeking joint trial of two arbitration proceedings rejected as they were filed at a belated stage when the arbitration proceedings had significantly advanced.
Statutory provision(s): Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 151
Deepak Agarwal v. Anubhav Sharma, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2869570
