Parallel Arbitration No Bar at Section 11 Stage: P&H High Court Appoints Arbitrator Despite Pending Similar or Overlapping Claims Proceedings

Case Name: M/s K.D. Solar Systems v. M/s Acme Cleantech Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Date of Judgment: 19 February 2026

Citation: ARB-304-2025

Bench: Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that at the stage of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court is only required to examine the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement and its invocation. The pendency of similar or overlapping claims before another arbitral tribunal does not bar appointment of an arbitrator, as such issues fall within the domain of the arbitral tribunal.

Summary: The petitioner sought appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11 based on two purchase orders containing arbitration clauses. The disputes arose from these purchase orders and their ancillary work orders, and the arbitration clause was invoked through notice under Section 21.

The respondent opposed the petition on the ground that arbitration proceedings were already pending before a Delhi-based arbitral tribunal in relation to other purchase orders and work orders. It was contended that the petitioner had raised consolidated claims, including those forming the subject matter of the present petition, before the Delhi tribunal, thereby rendering the present petition not maintainable.

The Court noted that the existence of arbitration clauses in the purchase orders was undisputed. It further observed that whether claims overlap, are maintainable, or have been wrongly consolidated are matters to be adjudicated by the arbitral tribunal and not at the Section 11 stage.

Reiterating settled law, the Court held that the scope of Section 11 is confined to prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement and does not extend to conducting a mini-trial on issues such as arbitrability or jurisdiction of claims.

The Court also clarified that exactitude in a Section 21 notice is not necessary; what is required is invocation of the arbitration clause.

Considering that there were multiple purchase orders and ancillary work orders, the Court held that separate arbitral proceedings could be constituted, even with a common arbitrator, in line with settled principles governing composite transactions.

Decision: The High Court allowed the petition and constituted two arbitral tribunals with a common sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from the respective purchase orders and their ancillary work orders.