Upon consensual reference to arbitration, the Section 9 petition was treated as a Section 17 application.

M/s Bafna Global Venture Pvt. Ltd. filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking, inter alia, restraint against NCERT from invoking or forfeiting a bank guarantee of ₹6,09,20,000, restraint against the issuing bank from making payment under the guarantee, and restraint against debarment or blacklisting of the petitioner.

During the proceedings, the parties, upon instructions, agreed that the disputes forming the subject matter of the petition should be referred to arbitration.

The contract contained an arbitration clause providing for reference of disputes to a sole arbitrator appointed by the Director, NCERT, with Delhi as the seat/place of arbitration and Delhi courts having jurisdiction.

By consent, the parties waived the contractual and formal procedures for appointment and agreed to the appointment of a sole arbitrator by the Court.

Whether the disputes between the petitioner and NCERT should be referred to arbitration by consent of the parties.

Whether the Court should appoint a sole arbitrator notwithstanding the contractual mechanism providing for appointment by the Director, NCERT.

Whether the pending Section 9 petition should be treated as an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and whether the interim order should continue until its adjudication by the arbitral tribunal.

The Court applied Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, concerning interim measures by a court, and Section 17, concerning interim measures granted by an arbitral tribunal.

It also applied Section 12(2), requiring disclosures by the proposed arbitrator regarding circumstances affecting independence or impartiality.

The Court gave effect to the contractual arbitration clause, which required disputes connected with the contract to be referred to arbitration, provided for a reasoned award, and designated Delhi as the place of arbitration and Delhi courts as having jurisdiction.

Since both parties consented to arbitration and waived the contractual and formal appointment procedure, the Court exercised its authority to appoint a sole arbitrator and directed that the arbitration be conducted under the rules and aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).

The parties’ unequivocal agreement that the disputes should be arbitrated made referral to arbitration appropriate and avoided further delay in commencing the arbitral proceedings.

Although the contract contemplated appointment by the Director, NCERT, both parties expressly waived that procedure and consented to appointment by the Court; accordingly, the Court appointed Justice Ravi Shankar Jha (Retd.) as the sole arbitrator.

The Court preserved the arbitral tribunal’s competence to determine all issues, including arbitrability and jurisdiction, and directed that the disputes, claims, and counterclaims be adjudicated independently and on their merits.

Since the substantive interim reliefs sought in the Section 9 petition could appropriately be considered by the tribunal under Section 17, the Court converted the petition into a Section 17 application.

To prevent the interim protection from lapsing before the tribunal could consider that application, the Court continued the interim order dated 24 June 2026 until the Section 17 application was taken up and decided.

The arbitration was directed to be conducted under the DIAC Rules, subject to the arbitrator furnishing the requisite Section 12(2) disclosures.

The Section 9 petition was treated as an application under Section 17, to be decided by the learned arbitrator upon entering the reference.

The interim order dated 24 June 2026 was continued until adjudication of the Section 17 application, and the petition and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.