Bombay High Court considers Section 11 application for arbitrator appointment despite procedural objections

KanoonHQ Legal Gazette · AI-generated brief from the source linked below. How briefs are made

Published 4 November 2026

Case: Samrat Restaurant v. Brewcrafts Microbrewing Pvt Ltd
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: carapl34336-2026-J.doc
Decided: 3 November 2026
Statutes: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s.11
Source: Indian Kanoon (Bombay HC)

Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)

In Samrat Restaurant v. Brewcrafts Microbrewing Pvt Ltd, the Bombay High Court on 2026-11-03 heard an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for the appointment of a sole arbitrator. The respondent opposed, citing non-compliance with the agreed appointment procedure in the Leave and Licence Agreement and raising issues of limitation and prior NCLT/NCLAT proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi · Legal Principle Established

The court considered an application for the appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, despite the respondent's objections regarding non-adherence to the contractually agreed arbitration procedure and other preliminary issues such as limitation and the effect of prior proceedings before the NCLT and NCLAT.

Practice & Procedural Impact for Advocates

Advocates should ensure strict compliance with the arbitration appointment procedure outlined in the agreement to avoid objections. Litigants should be prepared to address preliminary objections like limitation and the impact of prior tribunal proceedings when seeking arbitrator appointment.

Key Legal Takeaways

1An application for arbitrator appointment under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, can be filed.
2Respondents may object to such applications based on non-compliance with agreed appointment procedures.
3Preliminary issues like limitation and the effect of prior NCLT/NCLAT proceedings can be raised during Section 11 applications.

The Legal Issue Samrat Restaurant filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the Bombay High Court, seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator. The purpose was to resolve disputes arising from a registered Leave and Licence Agreement dated 4 May 2017. Brewcrafts Microbrewing Pvt Ltd, the respondent, opposed this application, primarily arguing that Samrat Restaurant had not followed the specific procedure for arbitrator appointment stipulated in Clause XXXVIII of their agreement. Additionally, the respondent raised objections concerning limitation, the quantum and nature of the claim, and the implications of earlier proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).

Court's Reasoning The Bombay High Court, on 3 November 2026, heard the application. The court's consideration revolved around whether to proceed with the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 despite the respondent's procedural objections and other preliminary legal challenges. The core of the dispute was the balance between the statutory power to appoint an arbitrator and the contractual autonomy of the parties regarding the arbitration process. The court had to assess the validity of the respondent's claims regarding non-compliance with the agreed procedure and the impact of other legal hurdles raised.

What Follows The Bombay High Court will now determine whether the objections raised by Brewcrafts Microbrewing Pvt Ltd are sufficient to dismiss the application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or if an arbitrator should be appointed regardless. The court will likely issue directions regarding the validity of the arbitration clause, the adherence to the agreed procedure, and the preliminary issues of limitation and prior NCLT/NCLAT proceedings.