#Section 11

Under Section 11(6A) the Calcutta HC limited the referral court’s role to checking arbitration agreement existence and timeliness, barring inquiry into merits or consumer forum orders. Thus the developer’s non consumer claims remain arbitrable despite any consumer forum order, affecting developers and homebuyers.

The Supreme Court held that a non-signatory may be joined as a veritable party in arbitration when a nexus with the arbitration agreement exists, upholding the referral court’s jurisdiction under Section 11 of the ACA, 1996 and clarifying doctrine scope.

A pending civil suit on the same subject matter bars parallel arbitration under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. It reinforces election of remedies barring duplicate forum litigation in partnership disputes.

Delhi HC appoints sole arbitrator under Section 11 of Arbitration Act, 1996; inquiry limited to prima facie arbitration agreement; claim Rs.85,35,069/-.

The Delhi High Court held that an arbitration clause letting one party curate the arbitrator panel breaches Section 18’s equal treatment mandate, appointing a sole arbitrator under Section 11 and affecting contracts with similar party nominated panel clauses.

Bombay HC holds that a mortgagor discharging a borrower's debt cannot invoke the lender's arbitration clause against the borrower by subrogation, as mere payment does not transfer arbitration rights absent express assignment or a statutory subrogation regime extending to the arbitration agreement.

The Bombay High Court held that the clause 'Arbitration Subject to Mumbai Jurisdiction' in a purchase order constitutes a valid arbitration agreement under Section 7, even though it lacks mandatory referential language or procedural machinery. The court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6), affirming that minimalist clauses can satisfy the statutory threshold for arbitration agreements in commercial contracts.

The Bombay High Court held that an assignee of ownership rights is not bound by an arbitration clause in a development agreement unless the arbitration agreement is expressly assigned or accepted. The court also ruled that limitation objections fall within the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 16, not the Section 11 court's purview at the appointment stage.

The Delhi High Court held that for Section 11(6) applications, the limitation period begins only upon formal rejection of a claim, not from preliminary correspondence. The court also ruled that the mandatory mediation period under the contract must be excluded from the limitation calculation, appointing a sole arbitrator in a duty-free shop licence dispute with AAI.

Delhi HC rules arbitration clause survives final award for subsequent distinct disputes, appointing arbitrator under Section 11(6) for GST reimbursement claim. Court confines Section 11 inquiry to prima facie existence of arbitration agreement, not dispute merits. Decision protects arbitration rights in long-term contracts where fresh claims arise post-award.

A Section 11(6) petition is limited to a prima-facie test of the arbitration agreement, with limitation defences outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court also held that non-signatory promoters can be treated as parties to the arbitration. This narrows Section 11 scope and extends arbitral reach to promoters.

The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) ruled that interest on land acquisition compensation accrues from the date of the award under Section 11, not the notification date under Section 4(1). This aligns with the Full Bench decision in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari, impacting pending and future land acquisition disputes in Maharashtra.

Bombay High Court rules that fresh arbitral proceedings after an award is set aside under Section 34 begin only upon issuance of a Section 21 notice, not retrospectively. Non-signatories can be impleaded only if prima facie evidence links them to the underlying contract, reinforcing the 'Group of Companies' doctrine in commercial arbitration.

Bombay High Court clarifies that under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, the referral court’s jurisdiction is strictly limited to verifying the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement. Issues like limitation, abandonment, or merits of the dispute must be left to the arbitral tribunal, reinforcing minimal judicial intervention in arbitration referrals.

ITAT Mumbai rules that denial of exemption under Sections 11/12 of the Income Tax Act does not permit taxation of gross receipts; allowable expenses must be computed under normal provisions. The ruling reinforces that technical defaults like delayed filings cannot justify taxing gross income without deducting legitimate expenses for charitable trusts.