Mutually Consented Referral to Arbitration Dispenses with Section 21 Notice and Section 11 Proceedings.

The Petitioner and Respondent entered into an "Operations and Maintenance Lease Contract" on 08.07.2013 regarding a "Neighborhood Cultural Centre" located under the Raja Garden Flyover.

Following disputes, the Petitioner filed the present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to keep the contract termination in abeyance and restrain the Respondent from taking physical possession of the facility pending dispute resolution.

During the hearing, both parties expressed mutual consent to bypass certain procedural requirements and refer the matter directly to arbitration.

1. Whether the court should grant interim relief under Section 9 or refer the parties to arbitration based on their mutual consent and the existing arbitration clause.

2. Whether the procedural requirements of Section 21 (notice) and Section 11 (appointment of arbitrator) can be dispensed with by mutual consent to expedite the process.

The court applied Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which allows parties to seek interim measures before or during arbitral proceedings.

The principle of party autonomy and mutual consent under the Act to dispense with the notice requirement under Section 21 and the appointment procedure under Section 11.

Section 17 of the Act, which empowers an Arbitral Tribunal to pass interim orders, by directing that the Section 9 petition be treated as a Section 17 application before the newly appointed arbitrator.

The court noted that Article 12 of the parties' contract contained an exhaustive dispute resolution mechanism, ranging from conciliation to arbitration by a three-member board.

The parties reached an agreement (ad idem) to simplify this process.

The court observed that to avoid undue delay, a Sole Arbitrator should be appointed instead of the complex board described in the contract.

By consenting to dispense with Section 21 and Section 11 formalities, the parties enabled the court to directly appoint a neutral arbitrator.

The court declined to rule on the merits of the interim relief sought (the stay on termination), instead transferring that determination to the arbitrator to ensure the specialized tribunal handles the substantive dispute.

The court held that the present Section 9 petition shall be treated as an application under Section 17 to be decided by the Arbitrator upon entering the reference.

The parties were directed to share the costs and fees equally, and all rights and contentions on the merits were kept open for the arbitral proceedings.