LexREGENTA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED versus M/S HOTEL GRAND CENTRE POINT AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 206 : 2026 INSC 32 Regenta Hotels Private Limited v. M/s Hotel Grand Centre Point and Others (Civil Appeal No. 90 of 2026) 07 January 2026 [Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the Appellant has initiated arbitral proceedings after the expiry of 90 days period as prescribed u/s.9(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, thereby resulting in automatic vacation of ad-interim injunction in terms of r.9(4) of the Arbitration (Proceedings Before the Courts) Rules, 2001. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.21, 9(2) – Arbitration (Proceedings Before the Courts) Rules, 2001 – r.9 – “Commencement of arbitral proceedings” under the Act – Parties entered into a Franchise Agreement in 2019 – Disputes arose, Appellant filed application u/s.9 and certain IAs before the Trial Court seeking injunctive reliefs against the Respondent No.2 – Trial Court vide Order dtd.17.02.2024 granted ad-interim injunction against Respondent No.2 – On 11.04.2024, appellant issued notice to the Respondents invoking arbitration – Respondent No.2 sent a reply on 23.04.2024 refusing to concur with the nomination of the Arbitrator – Appellant filed petition u/s.11(6) before the High Court on 28.06.2024 seeking appointment of sole Arbitrator and for referring the parties to arbitration – IAs filed by the Appellant dismissed by Trial Court – Appeal filed by the Appellant, dismissed by High Court – Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the Appellant has initiated arbitral proceedings after the expiry of 90 days period as prescribed u/s.9(2), resulting in automatic vacation of ad-interim injunction in terms of r.9(4), 2001 Rules: Held: No – Arbitral proceedings, as commenced by the Appellant, are well within the statutory time frame provided u/s.9(2) and the * Author [2026] 1 S.C.R. 207 Regenta Hotels Private Limited v. M/s Hotel Grand Centre Point and Others rigor of r.9(4), 2001 Rules is not applicable to the Appellant – The date on which the respondent receives a notice or request invoking arbitration is the moment at which the arbitral proceedings commence u/s.21 – A valid invocation requires the notice to articulate the dispute sought to be referred but once such notice is received, commencement is complete and effective for all legal purposes including limitation, maintainability of the s.11 Petition and the legal efficacy of any pre-arbitral measures – Trial Court passed the Order dtd.17.02.2024 granting ad-interim injunction to the Appellant – Period of ninety days as provided u/s.9(2) would end on 17.05.2024 – Appellant served a notice invoking arbitration on 11.04.2024 – Reply of Respondent No.2 dtd.23.04.2024 refusing to join in the appointment of an arbitrator entails that notice had indeed been received and understood as an invocation of the arbitral process by the Respondent No.2 – Even if 23.04.2024, the date on which the reply sent by the Respondent No.2, is taken to calculate the period of ninety days, as stipulated u/s.9(2) and the consequences thereof provided u/r.9(4), 2001 Rules, the arbitral proceedings have commenced well within the time and way before expiry of such periods – High Court treated the date of filing of the s.11 petition i.e. 28.06.2024 as the date of commencement of the arbitral proceedings resulting into the finding that ad-interim stay stood vacated and proceedings commenced after the expiry of ninety days period provided u/s.9(2) – This finding is not sustainable as it is contrary to the objective and purpose of the Act – Impugned Judgment of the High Court unsustainable, set aside – Order of the Trial Court dtd.01.10.2024 vacating the ad-interim injunction also set aside, restoring the earlier Order dtd.17.02.2024 [Paras 22, 28, 31 ] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.21: Held: The commencement of arbitral proceedings is a statutory event defined exclusively u/s.21, wherein the respondent’s receipt of a request to refer the dispute to arbitration sets the arbitral proceedings in motion and no judicial application i.e. whether u/s.9 or s.11 petition, constitutes commencement – Therefore, the statutory consequences tied to commencement, including the mandate u/s.9(2), must be assessed solely with reference to the date of receipt of request invoking arbitration u/s.21. [Para 23] Arbitration and Conciliat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.