Orders under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act cannot be challenged under Article 226/227 of the Constitution.

The Petitioner originally filed a civil suit (C.S. 677/2021) against M/s ICICI Securities Limited (Respondent No. 2) and the National Stock Exchange (Respondent No. 1) for recovery of allegedly misappropriated money

The Trial Court, via order dated 17.11.2021, referred the dispute to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, noting that while there was no arbitration agreement with Respondent No. 1, the primary prayers were against Respondent No. 2

This order was upheld by a Revisional Court on 19.07.2023

Subsequently, in a Section 11 application (Arb. P. 1264/2023), the High Court appointed an arbitrator only for the dispute with Respondent No. 2 but observed that the Tribunal could add parties under Section 16

The Petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 226/227 to set aside these prior judgments and restore the civil suit

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against a judicial order passed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

2. Whether the non-inclusion of a non-signatory (Respondent No. 1) by a Section 11 Court precludes the Arbitral Tribunal from impleading said party at a later stage

Section 11 and Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the latter of which empowers an Arbitral Tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction and add or delete parties

SBP & Co. v. Patel Engg. Ltd., which established that an order passed under Section 11 is a judicial order and cannot be challenged via writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227, but only via Article 136 before the Supreme Court

Cox and Kings Ltd v. Sap India Pvt Ltd. and Adavya Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Vishal Structuras Pvt. Ltd., which affirm that an Arbitral Tribunal has the power to implead non-signatories even if the referral court declined to do so at the prima facie stage

The Court reasoned that the petitioner’s challenge to the Section 11 order (dated 30.05.2025) was legally impermissible through a writ petition because such orders are adjudicatory and judicial in nature, making the Supreme Court the only appropriate forum for grievance

Regarding the exclusion of Respondent No. 1, the Court found that the Section 11 Court had correctly limited its scope to a prima facie examination of the arbitration agreement

The Court emphasized that this limitation does not "denude the jurisdiction" of the Arbitral Tribunal. Under the kompetenz-kompetenz principle and Section 16, the Tribunal remains vestigially empowered to implead non-signatories or additional parties like Respondent No. 1 if the necessity is established during the proceedings

Since the previous orders in the civil suit and revision had already attained finality, they could not be reopened in this collateral writ proceeding

It further held that the Petitioner’s grievance regarding the non-inclusion of Respondent No. 1 did not warrant interference because the Arbitral Tribunal retains the power to implead parties under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act

The Court dismissed the petition... All pending applications were dismissed accordingly