Case Title: Regenta Hotels Private Limited v. M/s Hotel Grand Centre Point & Ors. Court: Supreme Court of India Citation: 2026 INSC 32 Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih Date of Judgment: January 09, 2026
Introduction
In a significant development for Indian arbitration jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has resolved the ambiguity surrounding the “commencement” of arbitral proceedings. The Court held that the definitive trigger for the start of arbitration is the receipt of a notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and not the subsequent filing of a Section 11 petition for the appointment of an arbitrator.
Facts of the Case
The appellant, Regenta Hotels Private Limited, had entered into a franchise agreement which included an arbitration clause. Following disputes, the appellant obtained interim protection under Section 9 from a trial court.
Under Section 9(2) of the Act, if a court grants interim relief before the commencement of arbitration, the proceedings must “commence” within 90 days. The appellant issued a notice invoking arbitration (Section 21) within this 90-day window. However, the petition for the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 was filed after the expiry of the 90 days.
The Karnataka High Court subsequently vacated the interim relief, reasoning that since the Section 11 petition was filed late, the arbitration had not “commenced” within the statutory timeframe.
The Core Legal Issue
Whether the “commencement” of arbitral proceedings, as contemplated under Section 9(2) and Section 21 of the Act, refers to the date of service of the invocation notice or the date of filing a Section 11 petition in Court?
Observations of the Court
The Supreme Court, while setting aside the High Court’s order, made several critical observations regarding the scheme of the Act:
- Exclusivity of Section 21: The Bench noted that Section 21 is the “sole arbiter” of when proceedings begin. It explicitly states that arbitration commences on the date a request for a dispute to be referred to arbitration is received by the respondent.
- Section 11 as a Remedial Measure: The Court clarified that a Section 11 petition is merely a procedural fallback. It is a judicial remedy sought only when parties fail to appoint an arbitrator through mutual consent. It does not signify the initiation of the dispute resolution process itself.
- Party Autonomy vs. Judicial Delay: The Court emphasized that the law favors party autonomy. If the start date were tied to the filing of a Section 11 petition, parties would be unfairly penalized for the time taken to navigate judicial bottlenecks, even if they had already formally invoked arbitration.
- Uniform Interpretation: The Court warned against interpreting procedural rules (such as High Court Arbitration Rules) in a manner that contradicts the substantive provisions of the parent Act.
Conclusion and Key Takeaways
The ruling reinforces the “Pro-Arbitration” stance of the Indian judiciary by ensuring that interim protections are not lost due to procedural technicalities.
- For Practitioners: Ensure the Section 21 notice is served and proof of receipt is maintained, as this “stops the clock” for Section 9(2) compliance and limitation periods.
- For Litigants: The delay in a Court appointing an arbitrator will not jeopardize interim reliefs already granted, provided the notice of invocation was timely.
