The Delhi High Court has dismissed applications seeking the joint trial of two separate arbitration proceedings, ruling that such a request cannot be entertained at an “extremely belated stage” when the matters have already progressed to the stage of evidence.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that once an arbitrator is appointed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the proceedings have advanced considerably, the Court should not disturb the status quo to maintain the principle of minimal judicial interference.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from two distinct petitions filed in 2024 under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act: Deepak Agarwal & Anr. v. Anubhav Sharma (ARB.P. 1472/2024) and Clarion Properties Limited v. Anubhav Sharma (ARB.P. 1473/2024).
By separate orders dated February 4, 2025, the High Court had appointed Mr. Anubhav Bhasin and Mr. Swastik Singh as the respective arbitrators. The arbitral tribunals entered upon the reference over a year ago. Currently, the proceedings in both cases have reached the stage of evidence, with pleadings completed and issues framed.
The petitioners moved applications under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking directions for a joint trial before a single arbitrator in order to avoid “conflicting judgments.”
Arguments of the Parties
The Respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the applications. It was argued that once a Section 11 petition attains finality and an arbitrator is appointed, the Court becomes functus officio.
The Respondent’s counsel submitted that the arbitrator becomes the “master of the proceeding” and any judicial interference at this stage would violate the objective of “expeditious adjudication.” They further alleged the applications were “frivolous” and filed “extremely belatedly,” noting that the petitioners had failed to resort to Rule 6 of the DIAC Rules, which allows for the consolidation of proceedings.
The Respondent relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Limited and Ors. (2025), which states:
“Once the appointment was made, the court became functus officio and could not sit in judgment over the very issue it had already settled.”
Conversely, the Petitioners relied on the Supreme Court ruling in P.R. Shah, Shares and Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. v. B.H.H. Securities (P) Ltd. & Ors. (2012). They argued that it is “preferable and in fact desirable” to consolidate arbitration proceedings between the same parties relating to similar agreements to ensure consistent adjudication.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
Justice Shankar observed that the arbitral proceedings had already “traversed a fair distance.” The Court noted that since pleadings were complete, issues were framed, and evidence was being recorded, it would not be “advisable to disturb the status quo.”
Regarding the jurisdiction of the Court after the appointment of an arbitrator, the Court referred to the Supreme Court’s stance that Section 11 is intended to “trigger arbitration, not to create multiple stages of judicial reconsideration.”
The Court concluded:
“In this backdrop, this Court is of the considered view that since the matter has traversed a fair distance, at this stage, it would not be advisable to disturb the status quo as it presently exists and therefore the reliefs as sought for by way of the present Applications are liable to be rejected.”
While dismissing the applications, the Court clarified that parties remain free to apprise the learned Arbitrators of the progress in the parallel matter and request hearings “in tandem,” subject to the convenience of all involved. The Court emphasized it was not directing the arbitrators to follow any specific procedure.
Case Details
Case Title: Deepak Agarwal & Anr. vs. Anubhav Sharma (with connected matter)
Case Number: ARB.P. 1472/2024 and ARB.P. 1473/2024
Bench: Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
Date of Decision: March 17, 2026
