Court emphasizes the principle of kompetenz-kompetenz and directs Sole Arbitrator to proceed with pending application, reinforcing strict boundaries on interim relief under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
In a significant judgment dated September 11, 2026, the Calcutta High Court (Division Bench, Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri) delivered a landmark ruling in the matter of Bijay Saha @ Bijoy Saha v. Ajit Saha and Ors., emphasizing the limited scope of judicial intervention in ongoing arbitration proceedings. The appeal arose against an order passed by the Learned District Judge, Darjeeling, which had restrained the Sole Arbitrator from proceeding with an application under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, pending disposal of an application seeking termination of the Arbitrator's mandate under Sections 14 and 15 of the Act.
The dispute between the parties, who are family members, revolves around the management and control of companies owned and managed by the family. After the death of their father, the parties referred their disputes to arbitration, culminating in an arbitral award dated September 9, 2014. In 2022, execution of the award commenced; however, the appellant filed an application under Section 11 seeking corrections. After dismissal of that application with liberty to file a proper petition, the appellant filed an application under Section 33 of the Act for correction and interpretation of the award, which remains pending before the Sole Arbitrator.
Meanwhile, the respondents filed applications under Sections 14 and 15 seeking termination of the Arbitrator's mandate and under Section 9 for interim reliefs. The District Judge's order restrained the Arbitrator from proceeding with the Section 33 application until the disposal of the termination application, relying on interim relief provisions under Section 9.
The High Court, while allowing the appeal, held that the District Judge's order was "grossly perverse and contrary to the mandate of the Act." Crucially, the Court observed that no challenge to the Arbitrator's jurisdiction had been filed before the Arbitrator, nor had any interim relief application been filed before the Arbitrator under Section 17. The Court underscored that judicial intervention in arbitration is strictly limited to urgent cases and must not overreach the authority of the Arbitral Tribunal.
Reiterating the principle of kompetenz-kompetenz, as highlighted by the Supreme Court in N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Indo Unique Flame Ltd. (2023 INSC 1066), the Court emphasized that Arbitral Tribunals should first address jurisdictional issues. The impugned order, which effectively restrained the arbitral process, was found unsustainable as it undermined the role and object of arbitration.
The Court directed the Sole Arbitrator to proceed with the pending application under Section 33 without delay, clarifying that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the pending application. The judgment reinforces the judiciary's stance to safeguard the autonomy of arbitration proceedings and maintain strict boundaries on interim judicial relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
This decision serves as a critical reminder that courts must exercise caution and restraint in intervening in arbitral proceedings and respect the primacy of the Arbitral Tribunal in adjudicating disputes, including jurisdictional questions.
Bottom Line:
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Judicial intervention during arbitration is limited to urgent cases and should not unnecessarily interfere with the arbitral process. Interim relief under Section 9 of the Act must adhere to strict boundaries to avoid overreaching the authority of the Arbitral Tribunal.
Statutory provision(s):
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 33
