Unconditional Withdrawal of Arbitrator Appointment Application Precludes Second Application on Same Cause of Action : Supreme Court
In M/S HPCL Bio-Fuels Ltd. v. M/S Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad, the Supreme Court ruled that if a party withdraws an application for appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, without leave to file afresh, a subsequent application on the same cause of action is barred. The bench, comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala, held that principles of Order 23 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, apply to such cases, treating the withdrawal as an abandonment of both the request and the arbitration itself.
The court clarified that a second application is permissible only if it invokes the arbitration clause for a different cause of action arising later. It emphasized that Order 23 Rule 1 aims to prevent repetitive litigation and aligns with the Arbitration Act's intent to expedite dispute resolution.
In this case, the respondent had withdrawn their first application without permission to reapply and later filed a second application, which was contested. The court, rejecting the second application, noted that unconditional withdrawal without liberty to refile constitutes abandonment of the arbitration proceedings and precludes re-litigation on the same matter.