High Courts lack jurisdiction to appoint arbitrators in international commercial arbitrations under Section 11(6).

The respondents instituted proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“1996 Act”) in OMP (I) (COMM) 269/2026. On 13 July 2026, the learned Single Judge granted ad interim relief directing Respondent No. 1, inter alia, not to utilise its receivables received after 27 April 2026, to disclose those receivables, and to transfer them to the respondent’s designated bank account.

The appellants challenged that order in FAO(OS)(COMM) 181/2026, but the Division Bench directed them to seek vacation of the order before the learned Single Judge and requested that the application be heard on 28 July 2026.

The appellants accordingly filed IA 19668/2026 seeking vacation of the interim order.

Instead of deciding that application, the learned Single Judge appointed a retired Supreme Court Judge as the sole arbitrator and directed that the Section 9 proceedings be treated as an application under Section 17 of the 1996 Act.

The appellants challenged both orders in the present appeal.

Whether the appellants could maintain a second challenge to the order dated 13 July 2026 after having already challenged it in an earlier appeal, which was disposed of by directing them to seek vacation of the order before the learned Single Judge?

Whether the learned Single Judge had jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator where the arbitration constituted an international commercial arbitration under Section 2(1)(f) of the 1996 Act?

Whether the order dated 28 July 2026 appointing the arbitrator was liable to be quashed and the appellants’ application for vacation of interim relief restored for decision on merits?

The Court applied Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 37 of the 1996 Act, governing appeals from specified arbitration-related orders.

Section 2(1)(f) of the 1996 Act defines “international commercial arbitration” as an arbitration concerning a commercial legal relationship where at least one party is, inter alia, a body corporate incorporated outside India.

Under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act, in an international commercial arbitration, the power to make the appointment in the specified circumstances lies with the Supreme Court or an institution designated by it, whereas the High Court exercises that power in arbitrations other than international commercial arbitrations.

The Court also applied the procedural principle that an appellant cannot maintain a second challenge to the same order after an earlier appeal concerning that order has been disposed of by relegating the appellant to an alternative procedural remedy.

The Court held that the challenge to the order dated 13 July 2026 could not be entertained because that order had already been challenged in FAO(OS)(COMM) 181/2026, in which the appellants were directed to pursue a stay-vacation application before the learned Single Judge.

The position regarding the order dated 28 July 2026 was different.

The parties agreed that the arbitration involved Ace Turtle Global Pte Ltd, a Singapore-based entity, and therefore constituted an international commercial arbitration under Section 2(1)(f).

Consequently, the learned Single Judge lacked jurisdiction to appoint the arbitrator because Section 11(6) vested the relevant appointment power in the Supreme Court or its designated arbitral institution, not the High Court.

Since the appointment order was without jurisdiction, and the parties consented to its reversal, the Court quashed that order and restored IA 19668/2026 for consideration on merits.

It held that the order dated 28 July 2026 was without jurisdiction because the arbitration was an international commercial arbitration and the High Court could not appoint the arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act.

Accordingly, with the parties’ consent, the Court quashed and set aside the order dated 28 July 2026, restored IA 19668/2026 before the learned Single Judge for decision on merits, directed the parties to appear before that Judge on 25 August 2026, and directed that the application be decided uninfluenced by the quashed order.