Shri Ram Industries Through Its Partner Bajrang Gupta vs. Shri Ram Industries Through Its Partner Parmesh Wassist

Held

The Court held that the applicant's argument regarding the amended Section 11(11) was misconceived. The Court noted that Section 1(2) of the 2019 Amendment Act stipulated that provisions would come into force on dates notified by the Central Government. While Section 11 of the 1996 Act was amended by Section 3 of the 2019 Amendment Act, this specific section had not yet been brought into force by notification as of the relevant date. Therefore, the unamended Section 11(11) was applicable. Regarding jurisdiction, the Court found that the applicant had not raised any objection to jurisdiction at the time of the original hearing. Furthermore, the GST registration certificate and ledger entries, which were later in time than the partnership deed mentioning Delhi, indicated the principal place of business in Jhajjar, Haryana, thus establishing jurisdiction. The Court found no factual or legal infirmity in the original order warranting review.

Facts

The applicant sought a review of a High Court order dated 16.07.2025, which had allowed the respondent's application for the appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The applicant contended that the amended Section 11(11) of the Act, introduced by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019, governed the situation, and that the application was made to more than one Arbitral Institution, making the institution that received the request first competent to appoint the arbitrator. The applicant also argued that the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, rendering this Court incompetent to entertain the Section 11(6) application. The respondent's principal place of business was indicated as Jhajjar, Haryana, based on a GST registration certificate and ledger entries.

Key Issues

1. Whether the amended Section 11(11) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as introduced by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019, was in force at the time of the original order, and if so, did it alter the competency of the Court to appoint an arbitrator when applications were made to multiple institutions? The petitioner argued that the amended Section 11(11) was effective from 09.08.2019 and that priority in filing applications before different Arbitral Institutions was the determining factor. The respondent did not explicitly argue on this point, but the Court addressed the effective date of the amendment. 2. Whether this Court had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application for the appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996? The petitioner contended that the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. The respondent relied on the GST registration certificate and ledger entries indicating the principal place of business in Jhajjar, Haryana, to establish jurisdiction.