High Court Cannot Review Section 11 Arbitrator Appointment After Becoming Functus Officio: Madras HC

The Madras High Court on 8 June held that once it appoints an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it becomes functus officio and cannot later review or invalidate that appointment because the Act does not confer such power.

Justice Abdul Quddhose dismissed review applications filed by Maavadi Soft Tech Ventures (India) Pvt. Ltd., True Value Homes India Private Limited and N. Ravichandran against Anir Tech Park Private Limited, refusing to revisit the Court's 22 April 2025 order appointing former Orissa High Court Chief Justice Dr. Justice S. Muralidhar as the sole arbitrator. He observed:

"The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has not granted the High Court the power to review its order passed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act appointing an Arbitrator. The High Court appointing the Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act also becomes 'Functus officio' on the appointment of the arbitrator and the said appointment cannot be invalidated by the same Court which passed the order."

The dispute arose from a Share Purchase Agreement dated 31 May 2017 and Memorandums of Undertaking dated 4 July 2016 and 5 July 2016. Anir Tech Park filed petitions under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act seeking the appointment of an arbitrator.

On 22 April 2025, the High Court appointed Justice S. Muralidhar as the sole arbitrator after recording a joint endorsement by counsel for both sides. It also granted the parties liberty to seek interim protection before the arbitral tribunal.

Maavadi Soft Tech Ventures, True Value Homes and Ravichandran challenged the appointment before the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition. On 16 February 2026, the Supreme Court allowed them to withdraw the petition with liberty to seek review before the High Court.

They then filed the present review applications, arguing that they had never unconditionally agreed to the appointment of the arbitrator and that Anir Tech Park's Section 11 petitions were barred by limitation. Anir Tech Park opposed the review applications and sought to uphold the appointment order.

The High Court found that the applicants had participated in the arbitral proceedings and that the tribunal had passed several procedural orders between 14 June 2025 and 25 April 2026. It also found that they had challenged the tribunal's jurisdiction and raised the limitation objection through a Section 16 application, which the arbitrator dismissed on 17 December 2025.

Further, the Bench held that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is a self-contained code that does not empower the High Court to review an order appointing an arbitrator under Section 11. It observed that once it appoints an arbitrator, its role ends and it cannot invalidate its own appointment through review proceedings. It noted:

“If such sort of review applications seeking to review the earlier orders passed by this Court under Section 11 of the Act appointing an Arbitrator are entertained, there will be no finality of any decision appointing an Arbitrator which will defeat the very legislative object of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, i.e. minimal judicial intervention.”

Relying on Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited, Justice Quddhose reiterated that High Courts cannot retrospectively invalidate their own Section 11 appointment orders after parties have participated in arbitral proceedings. He added that reviewing the 22 April 2025 appointment order would render the arbitral proceedings, including the 17 December 2025 order on the Section 16 application, a nullity.

Accordingly, the High Court held that the review applications were not maintainable, summarily dismissed all three petitions, and closed the connected applications.

Appearances for applicants (M/s Maavadi Soft Tech Ventures (India) Pvt. Ltd., True Value Homes India Private Limited and N. Ravichandran): Advocate Aparajitha Vishwanath.

Appearances for respondent (M/s Anir Tech Park Private Limited): Senior Advocate P.R. Raman for Advocate Abitha Banu.