Delhi HC Sets Aside Single Judge's Arbitrator Appointment In International Arbitration, Says SC Has Power

On 20 August, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court set aside a Single Judge's order appointing a retired Supreme Court judge as sole arbitrator to resolve disputes between August Purple Services Private Limited, Axis Trustee Services Limited and other parties, after both sides agreed that the arbitration was an international commercial arbitration.

Justices C. Hari Shankar and Vinod Kumar observed that an arbitration becomes an international commercial arbitration where one of the parties is based outside India. Therefore, the High Court did not have jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator, as such power rests with the Supreme Court. They stated:

“The contention that the arbitration would be an international commercial arbitration is predicated on the fact that one of the parties to the arbitral proceedings, viz. Ace Turtle Global Pte Ltd, is based in Singapore. We find this to be correct. In any case, on the fact that the arbitration would be an international commercial arbitration, learned Counsel are, as we have already noted, ad idem.”

“That being so, this Court could not have appointed an arbitrator to arbitrate on the dispute.”

The dispute arose after Axis Trustee Services Limited approached the High Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which allows a Court to grant interim measures to protect the subject matter of an arbitration.

On 13 July 2026, the Single Judge granted interim relief directing August Purple Services Private Limited not to utilise receivables received since 27 April 2026, to disclose the monies received during that period and to transfer them to a specified Axis Bank account.

August Purple challenged the interim order before the Division Bench. On 22 July 2026, however, the Bench directed the company to approach the Single Judge with an application seeking vacation of the interim order. August Purple accordingly filed an application before the Single Judge seeking vacation of the interim order.

On 28 July 2026, instead of deciding that application, the Single Judge appointed a retired Supreme Court judge as sole arbitrator and directed that the pending Section 9 proceedings be treated as an application for interim relief before the arbitrator under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act.

August Purple then challenged the 28 July order under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, read with Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Before the Division Bench, both sides agreed that the proceedings constituted an international commercial arbitration because Ace Turtle Global Pte Ltd was based in Singapore.

The Court also observed that the litigation might have been avoided had the jurisdictional position been brought to the Single Judge's notice.

Accordingly, the Division Bench set aside the 28 July 2026 order, restored August Purple's application seeking vacation of the interim order and directed the Single Judge to decide the application afresh on merits, uninfluenced by the order that had been set aside.

Appearances for respondent (Axis Trustee Services Limited & Ors.): Advocates Ankur Kashyap, Ayush Aggarwala, Rohit Rajershi, Aman Bajaj, Purushartha Singh and Siddharth Dua.