The Supreme Court has ruled that a party who abandons an earlier arbitration proceeding is barred from initiating a fresh arbitration on the same cause of action. The Court emphasised that such conduct amounts to an abuse of the judicial process and is prohibited on grounds of public policy, as the principles underlying Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, apply to proceedings under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

A bench comprising Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe allowed the appeal filed by Rajiv Gaddh and set aside the order dated 08.11.2024 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had appointed a sole arbitrator on the respondent’s second application under Section 11(6) of the Act.

The dispute stemmed from a joint venture between the parties for the purchase of 550 marlas of land in Hoshiarpur, Punjab, through an auction conducted by Jammu & Kashmir Bank. The parties executed three agreements on 02.04.2013 containing an arbitration clause to resolve disputes relating to the land and other joint ventures. The respondent invoked arbitration in 2015 and the High Court appointed an arbitrator. However, the respondent later ceased participation, alleged bias, refused to accept the arbitrator’s authority, and remained absent from proceedings. An arbitral award was passed on 30.06.2020 in favour of the appellant, granting the respondent a final opportunity to revive his claim, which he did not avail.

After the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the auction in a separate civil appeal on 09.07.2021, the respondent issued a fresh notice invoking arbitration and filed a second Section 11 application. The High Court allowed the application, holding that the issue of res judicata need not be examined at the Section 11 stage.

Setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court held that the respondent had clearly abandoned the earlier arbitration proceedings through his conduct. No fresh cause of action arose from the 2021 Supreme Court judgment, as the inter se disputes between the parties were independent of the auction’s validity. The Court observed that a litigant cannot be permitted to abuse the process of the Court by filing fresh proceedings on the same cause of action. The bar under Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC, which applies to Section 11 proceedings, is founded on public policy.

Case Title: Rajiv Gaddh v. Subodh Parkash
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. __ of 2026 (@ SLP (C) No. 4430 of 2025)
Date of Judgment: 01 April 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe

Click HERE for full Judgment