A pending suit does not, by itself, bar distinct contractual disputes from being referred to arbitration.

The applicant relied on a Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement dated 24 June 2021, under which he claimed the respondents had agreed to provide him Flat No. 1604, Olympia Tower, without payment and on an ownership basis.

He alleged that, although the building was completed in February 2026, the respondents neither gave him possession nor continued paying transit rent from March 2026

After the respondents declined his proposed sole arbitrator, the applicant sought appointment under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

The respondents objected that a related dispute was pending before the Small Causes Court in R.A.D. Suit No. 423 of 2021, concerning rival family claims to tenancy rights in the old premises

They also relied on an indemnity bond and provisions of the agreement

1. Whether the parties’ agreement and the failed appointment process justified appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act

2. Whether the pending Small Causes Court suit, the indemnity bond, or the related proceedings prevented referral of the applicant’s agreement-based disputes to arbitration

Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 empowers the Court to appoint an arbitrator where an arbitration agreement exists and the appointment process cannot be completed; at this stage, the Court need not finally determine disputed claims that may be decided by the arbitral tribunal

The Court also considered the respondents’ objection under Section 8, noting that the existence of a civil suit does not, by itself, preclude arbitration; the identity of the disputes, the parties and claims covered by the arbitration agreement, and any legal bar must be examined

No judicial precedents were cited.

The applicant relied on a written agreement containing an arbitration clause, had invoked arbitration, and the respondents had not agreed to his proposed appointment, supporting appointment under Section 11

The pending suit concerned competing family claims to tenancy in the old premises, whereas the arbitration application concerned the respondents’ alleged obligations under the alternate-accommodation agreement; overlap in property or facts alone did not establish that the agreement-based dispute could not be arbitrated

The indemnity bond and the agreement’s terms required consideration, but their effect, the applicant’s entitlement to the flat or transit rent, and the impact of the pending suit were not finally determined at the appointment stage

The Court left open the merits of the applicant’s claims, the effect of the indemnity bond, and the impact of the Small Causes Court proceedings; the appointment did not determine the applicant’s tenancy rights or entitlement to relief

The parties were directed to bear the arbitral costs and fees equally in the first instance, subject to the tribunal’s final award on costs