38.6c New Delhi, India, Tuesday, February 24, 2026
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

SC Clarifies Commencement of Arbitration for Section 9 Reliefs, Overturns High Court Ruling [Read Judgment]

By Samriddhi Ojha      09 January, 2026 11:18 PM      0 Comments
SC Clarifies Commencement of Arbitration for Section 9 Reliefs Overturns High Court Ruling

New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has delivered a significant ruling clarifying the “commencement of arbitral proceedings” under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, particularly in relation to interim measures granted under Section 9. The Court set aside the judgment of the Karnataka High Court, which had vacated an interim injunction on the ground that arbitral proceedings had not commenced within the statutory period of ninety days.

The Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih, in the matter of Regenta Hotels Private Limited v. M/s Hotel Grand Centre Point and Others, held that the date of commencement of arbitration is determined solely by the date on which the respondent receives the notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Act, and not by the subsequent filing of a petition under Section 11 for the appointment of an arbitrator.

The dispute arose after the appellant, Regenta Hotels Private Limited, obtained an ad-interim injunction on 17 February 2024 from the Trial Court against alleged interference by Respondent No. 2, a partner in M/s Hotel Grand Centre Point. The appellant subsequently issued a notice invoking arbitration on 11 April 2024. The High Court, however, upheld the vacation of the injunction, concluding that the filing of the Section 11 petition on 28 June 2024 was beyond the ninety-day period prescribed under Section 9(2) of the Act, read with Rule 9(4) of the Arbitration (Proceedings Before the Courts) Rules, 2001.

The Supreme Court emphatically rejected this interpretation. The Court observed:

“The High Court in the impugned judgment conflates the trigger for arbitral proceedings with the remedial mechanism made available when the respondent obstructs or declines to participate. The purpose of Section 21 is to specify the date of commencement of arbitral proceedings in order to determine whether a claim is barred by limitation and whether a party has complied with the requisite statutory or contractual time limit for initiation of arbitration.”

Relying on a long line of precedents, the Court reaffirmed the statutory scheme under Section 21 and stated:

“The settled position that has emerged is that the commencement of arbitral proceedings is a statutory event defined exclusively under Section 21 of the Act, wherein the respondent’s receipt of a request to refer the dispute to arbitration sets the arbitral proceedings in motion. No judicial application—whether under Section 9 or Section 11—constitutes commencement.”

Addressing the High Court’s reliance on the filing date of the Section 11 petition, the Supreme Court ruled:

“If the date of filing of the Section 11 petition is to be treated as the date of commencement of arbitral proceedings, as has been observed by the High Court in the impugned judgment, it would result in the displacement of commencement of arbitral proceedings as provided under Section 21 and would be contrary to the text and purpose of the Act.”

Applying this principle to the facts of the case, the Court found that the appellant’s notice invoking arbitration was served on 11 April 2024, or at the latest, on 23 April 2024, when the respondent replied refusing concurrence. Both dates fell well within the ninety-day period calculated from the ad-interim order dated 17 February 2024, which expired on 17 May 2024.

The Bench concluded:

“The arbitral proceedings, as commenced by the appellant, are well within the statutory time frame provided under Section 9(2) of the Act, and the rigor of Rule 9(4) of the 2001 Rules cannot be attracted to the appellant.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the original ad-interim injunction order dated 17 February 2024.

Case Details:

  • Case Name: Regenta Hotels Private Limited v. M/s Hotel Grand Centre Point and Others
  • Case Number: Civil Appeal No. _ of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 30212 of 2024) with Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 189 of 2025
  • Court: Supreme Court of India
  • Coram: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
  • Pronounced On: 07 January 2026

[Read Judgment]



Share this article:

About:

Samriddhi is a legal scholar currently pursuing her LL.M. in Constitutional Law at the National Law ...Read more



Leave a feedback about this
Related Posts
View All

Another CBI Officer Investigating Rakesh Asthana Moves SC Against Transfer, Makes Startling Revelations Another CBI Officer Investigating Rakesh Asthana Moves SC Against Transfer, Makes Startling Revelations

After A.K. Bassi, another CBI officer who was investigating corruption allegations against Special Director Rakesh Asthana moved the Supreme Court.

Ayodhya verdict: SC rules in favour of Ram Lalla, Sunni Waqf Board gets alternate land Ayodhya verdict: SC rules in favour of Ram Lalla, Sunni Waqf Board gets alternate land

SC bench led by CJI Ranjan Gogoi has allotted the dispute site to Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, while directing the government to allot an alternate 5 acre land within Ayodhya to Sunni Waqf Board to build a mosque.

Supreme Court: Money Spent On Judiciary Less Than 1% In All States Except Delhi Supreme Court: Money Spent On Judiciary Less Than 1% In All States Except Delhi

The court guided all states to document their response to the commission's report within four weeks. If any of the states fail to file a response, it will be presumed that they have no objections to the recommendations made by the commission, the court said.

Supreme Court Top Panel Names Chief Justices for Bombay, Orissa and Meghalaya High Courts Supreme Court Top Panel Names Chief Justices for Bombay, Orissa and Meghalaya High Courts

On April 18, 2020, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended new Chief Justices for three High Courts. Justice Dipankar Datta was proposed as Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, succeeding Justice B.P. Dharmadhikari. Justice Biswanath Somadder was nominated as Chief Justice of Meghalaya High Court, while Justice Mohammad Rafiq was recommended for transfer as Chief Justice of Orissa High Court.

TRENDING NEWS

allahabad-hc-awards-10-lakh-compensation-for-custodial-death-of-minor-in-pilibhit-jail
Trending Judiciary
Allahabad HC Awards ₹10 Lakh Compensation for Custodial Death of Minor in Pilibhit Jail [Read Order]

Allahabad High Court awards ₹10 lakh compensation for custodial death of a minor in Pilibhit jail, holding the State absolutely liable.

23 February, 2026 04:24 PM
amicus-curiae-sidharth-luthra-urges-supreme-court-to-revise-draft-criminal-practice-rules-in-light-of-bnss-bns-and-bsa-reforms
Trending Legal Insiders
Amicus Curiae Sidharth Luthra Urges Supreme Court To Revise Draft Criminal Practice Rules In Light Of BNSS, BNS & BSA Reforms [Read Order]

Amicus Curiae Sidharth Luthra urges the Supreme Court to adopt revised Draft Criminal Practice Rules 2026 in line with BNSS, BNS and BSA reforms.

23 February, 2026 04:38 PM

TOP STORIES

homoeopathy-practitioner-cannot-prescribe-allopathy-medicines-telangana-hc
Trending Judiciary
Homoeopathy Practitioner Cannot Prescribe Allopathy Medicines: Telangana HC [Read Order]

Supreme Court holds homoeopathy practitioners cannot prescribe allopathy drugs; Telangana HC quashes FIR on procedural lapse under NMCA.

20 February, 2026 11:28 AM
contractual-bar-on-interest-claims-overrides-interest-act-kerala-high-court-order-set-aside-sc
Trending Judiciary
Contractual Bar on Interest Claims Overrides Interest Act; Kerala High Court Order Set Aside: SC [Read Order]

Supreme Court rules that contractual clauses barring interest claims override the Interest Act, setting aside Kerala High Court’s order on delayed payments.

20 February, 2026 11:43 AM
us-sc-strikes-down-trumps-global-tariffs-rules-ieepa-does-not-authorize-president-to-impose-duties
Trending International
US SC Strikes Down Trump’s Global Tariffs, Rules IEEPA Does Not Authorize President to Impose Duties [Read Order]

US Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s global tariffs, ruling that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose import duties.

21 February, 2026 02:45 PM
kerala-hc-issues-notice-to-cbfc-over-certification-of-the-kerala-story-2-goes-beyond
Trending Judiciary
Kerala HC Issues Notice to CBFC Over Certification of ‘The Kerala Story 2 – Goes Beyond’

Kerala High Court issues notice to CBFC over certification of The Kerala Story 2, questions safeguards under Cinematograph Act; release not stayed.

21 February, 2026 02:50 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email