Summary: This blog examines two recent decisions, Rajiv Gaddh v. Subodh Prakash (Supreme Court) (2026 INSC 302) and Nalin Vallabhbhai Patel v. Atharva Realtors (Bombay High Court)(2026:BHC-OS:7780), which reinforce a practical message for businesses: If a party lets an arbitration lapse through its own inaction (or withdraws a Section 11 request without liberty), courts are unlikely to allow a “reset” by filing a fresh Section 11 application for the same disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Nalin Vallabhbhai Patel

Factual background

Disputes arose between the parties under an Assignment of Development Rights (“DRA”) dated December 6, 2010, and were referred to arbitration. These arbitral proceedings did not result in an award within the period prescribed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(“Act”), leading the Applicants to approach the Bombay High Court under Section 29A of the Act for an extension of the tribunal’s mandate. The application was dismissed, recording a categorical finding that the Applicants had “…abandoned the arbitration proceedings…” (“Section 29A Order”). The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition challenging this order.

Subsequently, the Applicants filed a fresh application under Section 11 of the Act, seeking appointment of a new arbitral tribunal to adjudicate the same disputes under the DRA. The question before the Bombay High Court was whether a fresh tribunal could be appointed under Section 11 in circumstances where an earlier refusal to extend the mandate of the previous tribunal under Section 29A exists on account of the Applicants’ conduct.

Why the Section 29A deadline matters (mandate vs. proceedings)

The Bombay High Court drew a clear statutory distinction: when time runs out under Section 29A of the Act, the arbitrator’s mandate ends, but the arbitration itself does not automatically terminate. Termination of the proceedings is separately governed by Section 32 of the Act, applicable in situations such as issuance of a final award, withdrawal of the claim, settlement, or a tribunal finding that continuation has become unnecessary or impossible). Thus, an expired mandate does not, by itself, guarantee the ability to reinitiate proceedings; however, in some situations, the dispute may continue before a substituted tribunal.

The deciding factor: who caused the delay?

The Bombay High Court held that the maintainability of a fresh Section 11 application depends on why the earlier tribunal’s mandate expired. Put simply:

1. If the delay is your fault, you may be shut out. Where a court refuses to extend time under Section 29A because the applicant effectively abandoned the reference (or otherwise defaulted), a fresh Section 11 application for the same disputes is not maintainable, as allowing a re-filing would let a defaulting party sidestep binding findings recorded in the Section 29A proceedings.
2. If the delay is not your fault, courts may allow substitution. Where the mandate expires for reasons not attributable to the applicant (e.g., tribunal-side delay), a fresh Section 11 application may be maintainable to ensure the disputes are decided on merits.

No “backdoor appeal” through Section 11

Applying these principles, the Bombay High Court held that entertaining the Applicant’s Section 11 application in the present case would amount to sitting in appeal or review over the Section 29A Order. The finding of abandonment recorded therein had attained finality and could not be indirectly reopened through Section 11 proceedings.

Rejection of “continuing cause of action”

The Applicants also contended that arbitration was being invoked afresh in respect of a continuing cause of action arising from the Respondents’ ongoing obligations under the DRA. The Bombay High Court negatived this, noting that the fresh notice invoking arbitration expressly referred to the earlier arbitral proceedings, demonstrating that the disputes were not independent or distinct. It held that the plea of a continuing cause of action was a contrived attempt to avoid the consequences of the Section 29A Order and did not constitute a genuine fresh invocation and could not be sustained.

The Supreme Court reinforced this approach in Rajiv Gaddh, which frames an attempt to reinvoke Section 11 of the Act for the same cause of action, after it has been abandoned/withdrawn, as an abuse of process.

Rajiv Gaddh

Factual background

In Rajiv Gaddh, the parties jointly participated in an auction conducted by Jammu & Kashmir Bank for land in Hoshiarpur, Punjab. The acquisition was financed through a loan of INR 4.30 crore from HDFC Bank, secured by mortgages over various properties. A tripartite agreement was executed among the parties and the bank, to regulate repayment obligations and release of the mortgaged properties.

Disputes arose, leading the Respondent to issue a notice invoking arbitration and to file a Section 11 application. Over time, three arbitrators were appointed. The first two recused themselves, and the third entered reference in September 2017. Although pleadings were completed in May 2019, the Respondent ceased participating in the proceedings, alleged bias, and initiated civil proceedings seeking termination of the arbitrator’s mandate.

In June 2020, the arbitrator passed an award decreeing the Appellant’s claims and dismissed the Respondent’s claim. While granting the Respondent a final opportunity to revive it by filing an amended statement of claim within three months, the arbitrator clarified that failure to do so would result in termination of the proceeding in relation to the Respondent’s claim. However, the Respondent did not file an amended statement of claim.

Pertinently, in unrelated writ proceedings, the Supreme Court (“Writ Proceedings”) upheld the validity of the auction and held that both parties (i.e., the Appellant and the Respondent) were entitled to the land. Relying on this order, the Respondent issued a fresh notice invoking arbitration in September 2021 and filed another Section 11 application.

The Supreme Court was called upon to consider whether a party that had abandoned earlier arbitral proceedings was barred from filing a fresh Section 11 application.

Analysis

The Supreme Court reiterated that Section 11 is usually a limited “threshold” stage (focused on whether an arbitration agreement exists). However, it also held that courts could refuse a second Section 11 attempt where a party had walked away from the earlier process.

Relying on HPCL Bio-Fuels Ltd. v. Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3190, the Supreme Court applied a principle similar to civil procedure: If you withdraw a proceeding (or abandon it) without reserving permission to file afresh, you generally cannot bring the same proceeding again. On that basis, where a party elects not to participate and effectively abandons the arbitration or withdraws a Section 11 application without liberty to file afresh, a fresh Section 11 application for the same disputes/cause of action is not maintainable. The Supreme Court described such re-filing as an abuse of process and contrary to public policy.

On facts, the Supreme Court also negatived the contention that the decision in the Writ Proceedings gave rise to a fresh cause of action, holding that these proceedings concerned only the validity of the auction and did not give rise to any new or independent disputes between the parties under the tripartite agreement.

Conclusion: Practical Checklist

Taken together, these decisions amplify the consequences of letting an arbitration drift. If a court records abandonment of an earlier reference (and that finding becomes final), the party may not be able to restart the same dispute by filing a fresh Section 11 application.

A few action points:

1. Treat Section 29A as a compliance milestone from day one. Treat the statutory timeline as a governance requirement, not merely a procedural date. Build internal reminders and require outside counsel to report on timeline risks at set intervals.
2. Take protective steps even if settlement talks are ongoing. Negotiations do not automatically excuse delay. Consider recording adjournments/pauses before the tribunal and, where needed, move for extension well before expiry.
3. Stay visibly engaged (or document why you cannot). Repeated non-participation can be characterised as abandonment. Keep a clear record of appearances, filings, and reasons for any non-steps.
4. Consider substitution/appointment routes if the delay is tribunal‑side. Where you can show the timeline slippage was not attributable to you, courts may still facilitate continuation through a substituted tribunal.

---