Withdrawal with liberty to approach alternative forum precludes subsequent application for identical relief.

The Applicant, a healthcare company, entered into a 15-year Lease Agreement on 20.04.2015 with the Respondent (Jeevan Deep Samity) to operate a trauma care hospital in Korba.

During the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the Respondent acquired the facility as an isolation center.

Disputes arose regarding the Respondent's failure to pay service costs exceeding ₹21 crores, the alleged illegal premature termination of the lease without the mandatory 180-day notice, and claims for damages.

The Applicant previously filed an arbitration request (ARBR No. 29/2023) for the same dispute, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 20.02.2024, with liberty granted by the High Court to approach the State Arbitration Tribunal.

The Applicant subsequently filed the present application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, contending that the State Arbitration Tribunal lacks jurisdiction as the dispute does not constitute a "works contract".

Whether an applicant, having previously withdrawn a Section 11 application with liberty to approach an alternative forum, can maintain a subsequent application for the same relief before the High Court.

Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, regarding the appointment of arbitrators.

common law doctrine of "approbate and reprobate," which prohibits a party from taking inconsistent legal stands to suit their convenience.

principles of finality of judicial orders and the prevention of the abuse of the process of law.

The Court observed that the Applicant had previously approached the High Court for the exact same dispute in ARBR No. 29/2023 and chose to withdraw that petition with the specific intent to approach the State Arbitration Tribunal.

The Court rejected the Applicant's new contention regarding the Tribunal's lack of jurisdiction, noting that the Applicant was fully aware of the nature of the dispute and the legal landscape at the time of the initial withdrawal.

The Chief Justice reasoned that allowing the Applicant to re-agitate the same issue after a conscious withdrawal would violate the principle that a litigant cannot "approbate and reprobate".

The Court found that entertaining such a petition would undermine the finality of the court's previous order dated 20.02.2024 and would constitute an abuse of the judicial process.

The application under Section 11(6) was dismissed.