/2022 INSC 0109/
1
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.  874 OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 7635 of 2021)
MOHAMMED MASROOR SHAIKH     …    APPELLANT
v.
BHARAT BHUSHAN GUPTA & ORS.      ...  RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 875 OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 7655 of 2021)
AND
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 875 OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 7714 of 2021)
J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
Leave granted.
1. These three appeals take exception  to the similar  orders
passed   by   a   learned   Single   Judge   of   the   Bombay   High   Court

2
on   6 th
  March   2020   on   the   petitions   under   Section   11   of   the
Arbitration   and   Conciliation   Act,   1996   (for   short   “the
Arbitration   Act”).   The   appellant,   the   respondent   no.1   and   the
respondent   nos.3   to   5   were   the   partners   of   three   different
partnership   firms   in   the   name   and   style   of   M/s   M.M.
Developers, Nisarga,  M/s  M.M. Developers, Shanti  Nagar   and
M/s   M.M.   Developers,   Shramjivi.     The   facts   of   these   three
cases   are   identical   and   therefore,   for   convenience,   we   are
referring   the   facts   of   the   case   in   Civil   Appeal   arising   out   of
Special   Leave   Petition   (Civil)   No.   7635   of   2021.   A   deed   of
retirement­cum­continuation   dated   12 th
  September   2014   (for
short   “the   retirement   deed”)   in   respect   of   the   firm   M/s   M.M.
Developers,   Nisarga   (the   respondent   no.2)   was   executed   by
and   between   the   appellant,   the   respondent   no.1   and   the
respondent nos.3 to 5.  The retirement deed recorded that the
respondent   no.1   retired   from   the   respondent   no.2   ­
partnership   firm   on   the   terms   and   conditions   mentioned
therein and the business of partnership firm was continued by
the appellant and the respondent nos.3 to 5.

3
2. The   respondent   no.1   by   his   advocate’s   notice   dated   18 th
February   2019   invoked   the   arbitration   clause   (clause   19)   in
the retirement deed.   According to the case of the respondent
no.1,   the   appellant   and   the   respondent   nos.3   to   5   did   not
respond to the said notice. Therefore, a petition under Section
11 of the Arbitration Act was filed by the respondent no.1. By
the impugned Order dated 6 th
  March 2020, the learned Single
Judge   of   the   Bombay   High   Court   allowed   the   petition   and
appointed a member of the Bar as the sole Arbitrator.  Similar
orders   were   passed   in   relation   to   the   two   other   firms.   The
present appeals have been filed on 9 th
 June 2021. 
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no.1
contending   that   though   the   appellant   was   served   with   the
advocate’s   notice   of   the   petition   under   Section   11   of   the
Arbitration   Act,   he   did   not   appear   in   the   petition.     In   the
counter affidavit, it is pointed out that on 8 th
  May 2021 in the
preliminary   meeting   held   by   the   learned   Arbitrator,   the
appellant   was   represented   by   an   advocate.     It   is   pointed   out
that the respondent no.1 filed an application under Section 17

4
of   the   Arbitration   Act   before   the   learned   Arbitrator   claiming
certain   interim   directions.   The   respondent   no.3   filed   an
application under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act contending
that there was no arbitration agreement in existence and that
the   claim   made   by   the   respondent   no.1   before   the   Arbitrator
was  barred by   limitation.   By  the order  dated 25 th
  May  2021,
the   learned   Arbitrator   rejected   the   objection   raised   under
Section   16.     The   respondent   no.1   has   pointed   out   in   the
counter   affidavit   that   before   the   learned   Arbitrator,   the
appellant,   the   respondent   no.2   and   respondent   nos.4   and   5
were   represented   by   a   common   advocate   who   specifically
supported   the   submissions   of   the   learned   counsel   appearing
for   the   respondent   no.3   in   support   of   the   application   under
Section   16.    It   is   also   pointed   out   that   the   aforesaid   material
facts have been suppressed in the present appeals filed on 9 th
June 2021.  It is also pointed out that by the order dated 24 th
June   2021,   the   learned   Arbitrator   allowed   the   application
under   Section   17   filed   by   the   respondent   no.1.   By   filing
additional   documents,   the   respondent   no.1   has   brought   on

5
record   a   copy   of   an   appeal   filed   by   the   appellant   and   the
respondent   no.2   for   challenging   the   Order   dated   24 th
  June
2021 before the Bombay High Court.
4. During the course of submissions, Mr. Manish Vashisht,
the   learned   Senior   Counsel   appearing   for   the   appellant
accepted that the appellant has filed a petition under Section
34   of   the   Arbitration   Act   for   challenging   the   order   dated   25 th
May   2021   passed   by   the   learned   Arbitrator   overruling   the
objections raised by the respondent no.3.  
5. The   learned   Senior   Counsel   appearing   for   the   appellant
in support of the appeals firstly urged that the High Court did
not issue and serve a notice of the petition filed under Section
11 of the Arbitration Act.  His submission is that the appellant
was   admitted   in   intensive   care   unit   of   a   hospital   on   3rd   May
2021   and   was   discharged   on   3 rd
  June   2021.   He   relied   upon
the documents placed on record to that effect in the  rejoinder.
He   submitted   that   clause   19   of   the   retirement   deed   does   not
provide   for   referring   a   dispute   between   the   respondent   no.1,
who   was   the   retiring   partner   and   the   continuing   partners   to

6
arbitration.   He   submitted   that   this   crucial   fact   has   been
ignored   by   the   learned   Single   Judge   of   the   Bombay   High
Court.   Moreover, even the facts pleaded in the petition under
Section   11   of   the   Arbitration   Act   show   that   the   claim   of   the
respondent   no.1   was   barred   by   limitation.     He   relied   upon   a
decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   State   of   Orissa   and
another  v.  Damodar Das 1
. He submitted that as the appellant
was   not   given   a   notice   of   the  date   fixed   in   the   petition   under
Section 11, he could not urge before the learned Single Judge
that the claim of the respondent no.1 was barred by limitation
and   that   there   was   no   arbitration   clause.   He   submitted   that
the appellant caused appearance before the learned Arbitrator
without   prejudice  to   his   rights   and   contentions.     The   learned
counsel relied upon another decision of this Court in the case
of  Vidya Drolia & Others  v . Durga Trading Corporation 2
  and
in   particular   what   is   held   in   paragraphs   95   and   98   thereof.
He   submitted   that   the   issues   which   are   concluded   by   the
impugned order cannot be reopened by the learned Arbitrator.
1   (1996) 2 SCC 216
2   (2021) 2 SCC 1

7
6. The   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   respondent   no.1
submitted   that   a   notice   of   arbitration   petition   filed   under
Section 11 was served upon the appellant.  He submitted that
the  appellant  was represented before the  Arbitral Tribunal  by
his   advocate,   Mr.   Shreyans   Baid,   who   supported   the
objections raised by   the respondent  no.3  under  Section 16 of
the   Arbitration   Act   regarding   the   absence   of   arbitration
agreement   as   well   as   the   time   barred   claim.     He   submitted
that the said objection was  overruled  by the learned Arbitrator
by   his   order   dated   25 th
  May   2021.   He   pointed   out   that   this
material fact has been suppressed by the appellant while filing
these   appeals.     He   pointed   out   that   the   appellant   has   filed
petitions   under   Section   34   of   the   Arbitration   Act   before   the
Bombay High Court on 2 nd
 December 2021 for challenging the
order   dated   25 th
  May   2021.   He   submitted   that   the   appellant
can   always   agitate   the   issues   raised   by   him   in   these   appeals
in the arbitration petition under Section 34. He submitted that
documents   have   been   placed   on   record   which   show   that   Mr.
Baid,   the   learned   advocate   was   appearing   on   behalf   of   the

8
appellant   before   the   learned   Arbitrator   and   that   the   said
advocate  represented  the  appellant  before the  Arbitrator  from
8 th
  May   2021.     The   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the
respondent no.1 submitted that what is held in paragraph 154
of   the   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Vidya   (supra)
completely supports the case of the respondent no.1.  
7. The   learned   Senior   Counsel   appearing   for   the   appellant
clarified that though the advocate’s notice of filing the petition
under   Section   11   was   served   upon   the   appellant,   the   date
fixed in the  arbitration petition  was not  communicated to  the
appellant.  Moreover, the Court did not issue any notice on the
petition filed under Section 11.
8. We  have given careful consideration to the  submissions.
It is not in dispute that along with advocate’s notice dated 8 th
November  2019 , the appellant  and   the  respondent  nos.2 to  5
were  served a copy of the petition filed under Section 11 of the
Arbitration   Act   by   the   respondent   no.1.     In   the   impugned
Order, the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court has
referred   to   the   affidavit   of   service   of   notice   filed   on   behalf   of

9
the respondent no.1.  A judicial notice will have to be taken of
a   long   standing   and   consistent   practice   followed   on   the
Original   Side   of   the   Bombay   High   Court.   The   practice   is   that
the   advocates   serve   a   notice   of   the   proceedings   filed   in   the
Court   even   before   it   comes   up   before   the   Court.     The   Court
acts   upon   such   service   effected   by   the   advocate   on   proof
thereof   being   produced   in   the   form   of   an   affidavit   of   service.
Therefore, there is nothing illegal about the High Court acting
upon the advocate’s notice admittedly served to the appellant.
According   to   the   case   of   the   appellant,   he   was   admitted   to   a
hospital   on   3 rd
  May   2021.     However,   the   advocate’s   notice   of
the   petition   under   Section   11   was   served   upon   the   appellant
in   November   2019.     Therefore,   the   appellant   could   have
always   made   arrangements   to   contest   the   said   petition.
Therefore, we reject the first submission made by the learned
Senior   Counsel   appearing   for   the   appellant   regarding   the
failure to serve the notice of the petition under Section 11. 
9. While   filing   the   present   appeals   on   9 th
  June   2021,   the
appellant   ought   to   have   disclosed   that   on   8 th
  May   2021,   his

10
advocate   had   appeared   before   the   learned   Arbitrator   in   the
first   preliminary   meeting   convened   by   the   learned   Arbitrator.
The   minutes   of   preliminary   meeting   recorded   by   the   learned
Arbitrator   do   not   record   that   the   appellant   appeared   in   the
meeting without prejudice to his right of challenging the order
appointing   the   Arbitrator.     In   fact,   Mr.   Baid,   the   learned
counsel   who   appeared   for   the   appellant   before   the   learned
Arbitrator,   by   e­mail   dated   29 th
  May   2021   addressed   to   the
learned   Arbitrator,   sought   his   permission   to   withdraw   his
appearance.     In   the   said   e­mail,   the   advocate   stated   that   he
was   appointed   on   the   instructions   of   the   present   appellant.
Moreover,   the   order   dated   25 th
  May   2021   passed   by   the
learned Arbitrator by which objections under Section 16 were
overruled   shows   that   the   same   advocate   appeared   for   the
appellant   and   supported   the   objections   raised   by   the
respondent no.3.  As the objection was rejected by the learned
Arbitrator,   in   view   of   sub­section   (6)   of   Section   16,   on   21 st
December   2021,   the   appellant   has   filed   a   petition   under

11
Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, which is pending before the
Bombay High Court for challenging the said Order.
10. The   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   respondent   no.1
has relied upon what has been held in paragraphs 95 and 98
of the decision of this Court in the case of   Vidya   (supra) . The
conclusions of this Court have been summarised in paragraph
154 of the said decision, which reads thus: 
“154.   Discussion   under   the   heading  
“Who     Decides     arbitrability?”   can   be
crystallised as under:
154.1.   Ratio   of   the   decision   in   Patel   Engg.
Ltd.   [ SBP & Co.   v.   Patel Engg. Ltd. , (2005) 8
SCC 618] on the scope of judicial review by
the   court   while   deciding   an   application
under   Sections   8   or   11   of   the   Arbitration
Act, post the amendments by Act 3 of 2016
(with  retrospective effect  from  23­10­2015)
and even post the amendments vide Act 33
of   2019   (with   effect   from   9­8­2019),   is   no
longer applicable.
154.2.   Scope   of   judicial   review   and
jurisdiction   of   the   court   under   Sections   8
and   11   of   the   Arbitration   Act   is   identical
but extremely limited and restricted.

12
154.3.   The   general   rule   and   principle,   in
view   of   the   legislative   mandate   clear   from
Act 3 of 2016 and Act 33 of 2019, and the
principle   of   severability   and   competence­
competence, is that the Arbitral Tribunal is
the   preferred   first   authority   to   determine
and   decide   all   questions   of   non­
arbitrability.   The court has been  conferred
power   of   “second   look”   on   aspects   of   non­
arbitrability   post   the   award   in   terms   of
sub­clauses ( i ), ( ii ) or ( iv ) of Section 34(2)( a )
or   sub­clause   ( i )   of   Section   34(2)( b )   of   the
Arbitration Act.
154.4.   Rarely as a demurrer the court may
interfere at Section 8 or 11 stage when it is
manifestly   and   ex   facie   certain   that   the
arbitration   agreement   is   non­existent,
invalid   or   the   disputes   are   non­arbitrable,
though   the   nature   and   facet   of   non­
arbitrability   would,   to   some   extent,
determine   the   level   and   nature   of   judicial
scrutiny.   The  restricted  and   limited  review
is   to   check   and   protect   parties   from   being
forced   to   arbitrate   when   the   matter   is
demonstrably   “non­arbitrable”   and   to   cut
off   the   deadwood.   The   court   by   default
would   refer   the   matter   when   contentions
relating   to   non­arbitrability   are   plainly
arguable;   when   consideration   in   summary
proceedings   would   be   insufficient   and
inconclusive;   when   facts   are   contested;
when the party opposing arbitration adopts
delaying   tactics   or   impairs   conduct   of
arbitration   proceedings.   This   is   not   the
stage for the court to enter into a mini trial

13
or   elaborate   review   so   as   to   usurp   the
jurisdiction   of   the   Arbitral   Tribunal   but   to
affirm   and   uphold   integrity   and   efficacy   of
arbitration   as   an   alternative   dispute
resolution mechanism.”
(underlines supplied)
11. Thus,   this   Court   held   that   while   dealing   with   petition
under Section 11, the Court by default would refer the matter
when   contentions   relating   to   non­arbitrability   are   plainly
arguable.       In   such   case,   the   issue   of   non­arbitrability   is   left
open   to   be   decided   by   the   Arbitral   Tribunal.       On   perusal   of
the   impugned   order,   we   find   that   the   issues   of   non­
arbitrability   and   the   claim   being   time   barred   have   not   been
concluded   by   the   learned   Single   Judge   of   the   Bombay   High
Court.     In   fact,   in   clause   (vii)   of   the   operative   part   of   the
impugned   Order,   the   learned   Single   Judge   has   observed   that
the   contentions   of   the   parties   have   been   kept   open.   The
petitions   filed   by   the   appellant   under   Section   34   of   the
Arbitration Act, challenging the Order dated 25 th
 May 2021 are
pending   before   the   High   Court   in   which   the   appellant   can
raise all permissible contentions. 

14
12. Therefore,   in   our   considered   view,   no   case   for
interference is made out.   We, therefore, dismiss the appeals,
while   leaving   open   the   contentions   raised   by   the   appellant  in
pending   petitions   under   Section   34   of   the   Arbitration   Act
before the High Court of Bombay. 
13. There will be no order as to costs.   Pending applications,
if any, shall stand disposed of.
…………..…………………J
 (INDIRA BANERJEE)
…………..…………………J
     (ABHAY S. OKA)
New Delhi;
February 02, 2022.