Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Supreme Court: In an SLP assailing the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court order, whereby the High Court allowed a petition under Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and proceeded to appoint a sole arbitrator by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11 and treating a contractual clause as a binding arbitration agreement, the Division Bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ., stayed the arbitration proceedings before the arbitrator and issued notice.
The dispute arises out of a partnership deed executed between the parties for carrying on business under the name and style of ETN Services at Srinagar. Clause 14 of the said deed provided that in case of disputes, the parties “can appoint an arbitrator”, whose decision would be binding. Based on this clause, the respondent preferred a petition under Section 11(6).
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court treated the said clause at par with a valid arbitration agreement and appointed a sole arbitrator.
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present petition. The primary contention of the petitioner was that the jurisdiction under Section 11 is confined to examining the existence of an arbitration agreement within the meaning of Section 7. At the hearing, it was contended that the said clause was permissive in nature and does not constitute a binding arbitration agreement within the meaning of Section 7.
Accordingly, the Court granted interim relief to the petitioner by staying the arbitration proceedings before the arbitrator till the next date of hearing.
[Mudasir Ahmad Khuroo v. Foziya Habeeb, SLP No. 12853 of 2026, order dated 30-4-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Akaant Kr. Mittal, Anant Singh, Arun Yadav, Abhishek Sharma, Shashank Shekhar Shukla, Bhavana Garg, Rohit Agarwal, Advocates with AOR Ritu Reniwal
For the respondent: N/A


