Reference of disputes to arbitration by consent dispensing with Section 11 and Section 21 procedures.

The Petitioner, Aditya Birla Capital Limited, filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim measures to secure an amount of approximately Rs. 24.23 Crores arising from a dispute under a Facility Agreement

The agreement included an arbitration clause (Clause 2) designating New Delhi as the seat and venue under the DIAC Rules

Respondent No. 1 is currently undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP)

the parties agreed to refer the dispute to a Sole Arbitrator while excluding Respondent No. 1 from the immediate proceedings and noting that Respondent No. 4 had already been deleted from the array of parties

1. Whether the court can refer the parties to arbitration and appoint an arbitrator while disposing of a Section 9 petition by mutual consent, dispensing with Section 11 procedures

2. Whether arbitral proceedings can be confined to specific respondents when one respondent is undergoing CIRP

Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, regarding interim measures by the court

principle of party autonomy under the Act to appoint an arbitrator through mutual consent, thereby dispensing with the formal requirements of a Section 21 notice (commencement of arbitration) and a separate Section 11 petition (appointment of arbitrators)

impact of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (implied via the mention of CIRP) which necessitates the suspension or exclusion of a corporate debtor from fresh legal proceedings

The court found that because both parties were ad idem (in agreement) that the dispute should be settled via arbitration, there was no need for a merit-based adjudication of the Section 9 petition

Due to the "peculiar facts"—specifically the consensus reached in open court—the judge determined that insisting on the procedural rigmarole of Section 21 notices or Section 11 filings would cause undue delay

The court carefully carved out Respondent No. 1 from the reference to ensure no violation of the moratorium/proceedings related to the CIRP, while maintaining the claims against the remaining parties (Respondents 2 and 3)

The court preserved the Petitioner's interests by directing that existing interim orders would remain in force until the Arbitrator decides otherwise

The holding directed that the arbitration proceed only between the Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3

The court ordered that the interim protections granted on 23.04.2025 and 30.04.2025 shall continue until the learned Arbitrator passes further directions

All rights and contentions of the parties, including jurisdictional objections, were left open for the Arbitral Tribunal to decide