Court May Consolidate Section 9 Petition into Section 17 Proceedings While Appointing Sole Arbitrator by Consent

The Petitioner, Vista Information Systems Pvt Ltd, entered into a Sub-Contract Agreement dated April 25, 2025, with Respondent No. 1 for telecommunications works related to the Mumbai-Ahmedabad High-Speed Rail Project

On May 19, 2026, Respondent No. 1 issued a letter terminating the Work Order dated August 27, 2025

Aggrieved by this termination, the Petitioner filed the present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim relief, including a stay on the termination letter

During the hearing, the parties jointly requested the court to constitute an Arbitral Tribunal to resolve their disputes

1. Whether the court should exercise its power to appoint a Sole Arbitrator upon the joint request of the parties during Section 9 proceedings

2. Whether the dispute regarding the impleadment of non-signatory parties (Respondents 2, 3, and 4) should be decided by the court or the Arbitral Tribunal

3. Whether the Section 9 petition for interim relief should be converted and referred to the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 17

Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which allows a party to seek interim measures before or during arbitral proceedings

Section 12 regarding the mandatory disclosures of the arbitrator

The Fourth Schedule regarding the fee structure

The principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz (implied), allowing the Arbitral Tribunal to decide on its own jurisdiction and the joinder of parties

The transition of the petition was guided by Section 17 of the Act, which empowers the Arbitral Tribunal to grant interim measures

The Court noted that the Sub-Contract Agreement contained an arbitration clause (Clause 20) designating Delhi as the seat and venue

Given the "serious disputes" between the parties and their mutual consent to bypass a separate Section 11 application, the Court appointed a former High Court Judge as the Sole Arbitrator

Regarding the impleadment of Respondents 2, 3 (consortium members), and 4 (the principal employer), the Court held that while the Petitioner holds they are "veritable parties," the legal basis and actual impleadment must be argued before and decided by the Sole Arbitrator, reserving all rights of the parties in this regard

To ensure judicial efficiency and since a tribunal was now constituted, the Court directed that the Section 9 petition be treated as an application under Section 17 to be adjudicated by the Arbitrator

The Court held that all preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction and the impleadment of Respondents 2–4 are to be decided by the Arbitrator

The present Section 9 petition was ordered to be treated as a Section 17 petition before the learned Sole Arbitrator, who is requested to hold a preliminary hearing within 10 days due to the urgency of the matter

No opinion was expressed on the merits of the case