This compilation indexes 12 orders and judgments — drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus — in which courts and tribunals dealt with proceedings filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (and, in one instance, its J&K equivalent), together with one Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ruling in which the citation "11(6)" appears in an income-tax search assessment context. It is intended for in-house legal and tax teams, Big-4 associates, and law firm researchers who need a structured, source-grounded reference point covering the full sweep of Section 11(6) filings indexed in this dataset. Cases span the Chhattisgarh, Jammu & Kashmir, Madhya Pradesh, Calcutta, and Jharkhand High Courts, as well as the ITAT Kolkata bench, and range from July 2025 to April 2026.

Research index only. This page summarises publicly available court and tribunal orders for reference purposes. Nothing on this page constitutes legal or tax advice. Readers should verify all citations against the original judgment and seek qualified professional guidance before acting on any information.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 empowers a party to apply to the Supreme Court or, as the case may be, the High Court (or any person or institution designated by such Court) for the appointment of an arbitrator where a party fails to act as required under the agreed appointment procedure, or the parties or two appointed arbitrators fail to reach agreement as required under the agreed procedure, or a person — including an institution — fails to perform a function entrusted under the agreed procedure. This provision is the principal gateway through which contracting parties in India invoke judicial assistance to constitute an arbitral tribunal when the contractual appointment mechanism has broken down or is being resisted. The J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 contains a materially parallel provision. This compilation does not constitute commentary on the merits of any individual application and does not express any view on how Section 11(6) should be applied to any specific fact pattern.

The 12 rulings

1. Angelique International Limited vs South East Central Railway

Bench: Chattisgarh High Court
Date: 2 April 2026
Sections engaged: 11(6)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The application (ARBR No. 23 of 2026) was filed before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator. Per the source preview, the applicant is an EPC company engaged in infrastructure and engineering projects including power, water, and railways, and the respondent is South East Central Railway acting through its Chief Electrical Engineer (Construction), SECR Head Office, Bilaspur. The source preview is truncated and does not disclose the court's final directions; the outcome is not specified in the source data.

2. Angelique International Limited vs South East Central Railway

Bench: Chattisgarh High Court
Date: 1 April 2026
Sections engaged: 11(6)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The application (ARBR No. 21 of 2026) was filed before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator. Per the source preview, the applicant — an EPC company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 — sought arbitration against South East Central Railway acting through its Chief Electrical Engineer (Construction), Bilaspur. The source preview is truncated and does not disclose the court's final directions; the outcome is not specified in the source data.

3. Vinay Jain vs M/S G M Sanman Associates

Bench: Chattisgarh High Court
Date: 16 March 2026
Sections engaged: 11(6)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The application (ARBR No. 55 of 2025) was filed before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Per the source preview, the applicant is Vinay Jain of Raipur, Chhattisgarh, and the respondents include M/s G M Sanman Associates and several individual respondents, all with addresses in Satna, Madhya Pradesh. The source preview is truncated and does not disclose the substantive dispute or the court's directions; the outcome is not specified in the source data.

4. 2026:Jklhc-Jmu:803 vs Charan Singh And Others

Bench: Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Date: 12 March 2026
Sections engaged: 11(6)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petition (Arb P No. 70/2025) was filed before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an independent arbitrator to adjudicate disputes regarding shares of the partners of M/s Upkar Stone Crusher. Per the source preview, the petitioner — identified in the text as Vijay Kumar — alleged that a partnership deed was executed on 11.04.2005 and registered before the Sub-Registrar, Jammu, and that disputes had arisen regarding the petitioner's continued partnership status and the respondent's reliance on an affidavit dated 12.07.2010 purportedly indicating the petitioner's intention to retire. The outcome is not specified in the source data.

5. Archees Real Estate vs Merlin Projects Limited

Bench: Chattisgarh High Court
Date: 11 March 2026
Sections engaged: 11(6)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The application (ARBR No. 23 of 2024) was filed before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur and involves multiple parties including Singhania Buildcon Private Limited, Merlin Projects Limited, and Archees Real Estate through its sole proprietor Meenali Singhania. Per the source preview, the matter arose in connection with Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, with senior advocates appearing for each party. The source preview is truncated and does not disclose the substantive dispute or the court's final directions; the outcome is not specified in the source data.

6. Belani Housing Development vs DCIT, Central Circle 1(4),, Kolkata

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata
Date: 27 February 2026
Sections engaged: 11(6)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (IT(SS)A 107/KOL/2025) was filed by Belani Housing Development Limited (PAN No. AABCB6728J) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "A" Bench, Kolkata, against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-20, Kolkata dated 31.10.2025 for Assessment Year 2018-19. Per the source preview, Ground Nos. 1 and 2 raised by the assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s upholding of the taxability of compensation received from M/s Saregama India Ltd, and the text_preview notes that a search action was conducted upon the assessee on 28.08.2018. The source preview is truncated and does not disclose the tribunal's final directions on the grounds raised; the outcome is not specified in the source data.

7. Reserved On: 13.02.2026 vs Gulshan Kumar And Others

Bench: Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Date: 27 February 2026
Sections engaged: 11(6)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petition (AP No. 12/2019) was filed before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu under Section 11(6) of the J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 for appointment of an independent arbitrator. Per the source preview, the petitioner — identified in the text as Rakesh Kumar — contended that a partnership was constituted between the parties to carry on business under the name M/s Sachdeva Garments at Jammu under a Partnership Deed dated 01.04.1996, and that disputes surfaced in 2017 when the respondents allegedly failed to remit the petitioner's share of profits and omitted his name from the firm's balance sheets and income tax returns. The full judgment was pronounced on 27.02.2026.

8. Premief Shield Pvt. Ltd vs Indian Institute Of Science Education

Bench: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Date: 13 February 2026
Sections engaged: 11(6), 12(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petition (Arbitration Case No. 99 of 2022) was filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between the parties. Per the source preview, a work order was issued to the petitioner on 23.03.2017 for providing services including security services at the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Bhopal, with the arbitration clause contained in clause 26 of the work order; the prayer to the court was specifically framed with reference to Section 12(5) of the Act of 1996 regarding the eligibility of the person named in the contractual appointment mechanism. The outcome is not specified in the source data.

9. Namita Bhattacharjee And Ors vs Atk Manor Developers Llp And Anr

Bench: Calcutta High Court
Date: 10 February 2026
Sections engaged: 11(6)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Two connected applications (AP(COM) No. 359 of 2024 and AP(COM) No. 607 of 2024) were filed before the Commercial Division of the Calcutta High Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Per the source preview, the petitioners sought appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate a dispute arising out of a development agreement dated September 14, 2018, entered into between the predecessor in interest of the petitioners, late Biswanath Bhattacharjee, and respondent No. 1 ATK Manor Developers LLP, for development and construction of building units. Judgment was reserved on 23.12.2025 and delivered on 10.02.2026; the outcome is not specified in the source data.

10. Nuove And Anr vs Rupak Paul

Bench: Calcutta High Court
Date: 18 December 2025
Sections engaged: 3(1)(b), 11(6)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The application (AP-COM/920/2025) was filed before the Commercial Division of the Calcutta High Court. Per the source preview, the petitioners contended that the respondent — a partner of the firm running a healthcare business under the name NUOVE — had started a competing business called NUOVE HEALTHCARE, which allegedly infringed the intellectual property and digital assets of the firm and caused diversion of patients; the petitioners had previously obtained an ad interim injunction from the Commercial Court at Rajarhat restraining the respondent from operating the competing business. The application was brought under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the source preview is truncated as to the court's directions; the outcome is not specified in the source data.

11. Prakash Roadlines Corporation Ltd vs Ntpc Limited

Bench: Jharkhand High Court
Date: 27 August 2025
Sections engaged: 11(6)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The application (Arbitration Application No. 20 of 2025) was filed before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Per the source preview, the petitioner, Prakash Roadlines Corporation Ltd, claimed unpaid consideration for loading jobs performed between 10.05.2022 and 12.05.2022 and losses, with the total claimed amount stated as Rs. 18,74,74,313.00 (excluding GST or other tax). The source preview is truncated and does not disclose the court's final directions; the outcome is not specified in the source data.

12. M/S Tast Healthy Foods India Pvt. Ltd vs M/S R.T. Food Products

Bench: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Date: 9 July 2025
Sections engaged: 11(6)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The application (Arbitration Case No. 21 of 2025) was filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of a sole arbitrator. Per the source preview, the applicant and respondent had entered into licence/usage cum sale agreements dated 24/06/2020 and 25/06/2020 containing an arbitration clause, and the applicant alleged it was unable to conduct its business following cancellation of its GST number by GST authorities due to non-grant of input tax credit (transitional credit). The source preview is truncated and does not disclose the court's final directions; the outcome is not specified in the source data.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Appointment petitions as the dominant use of Section 11(6). All 12 orders indexed here arose from petitions for appointment of an arbitrator filed before the relevant High Court (or, in one instance, from an income-tax tribunal appeal). This reflects the core function of Section 11(6) as the statutory mechanism for judicial intervention when a party or designated appointing authority fails to act under the agreed arbitration procedure.
Contractual relationships across diverse sectors. The underlying disputes span infrastructure and railway engineering contracts (Cases 1 and 2), partnership and business disputes (Cases 4, 7, and 10), real estate development agreements (Cases 5 and 9), service/security contracts with public institutions (Case 8), roadlines and logistics contracts with a public-sector undertaking (Case 11), and food products licensing arrangements (Case 12). Section 11(6) applications are not confined to any single commercial sector.
Public-sector respondents feature prominently. Cases 1, 2, 8, and 11 involve respondents that are public-sector entities (a railway zone, a government-funded research institute, and a central public-sector enterprise). This recurring pattern reflects the frequency with which private contractors invoke Section 11(6) against public-sector counterparties where the contractual appointment mechanism designates a departmental officer as sole arbitrator.
Truncated source previews limit outcome reporting. Across all 12 cases, the outcome is recorded as "not specified in source." This is consistent with the nature of Section 11(6) proceedings, where the order on the appointment application may be brief and the substantive reasoning may not be fully captured in a truncated text preview. Researchers should retrieve full judgment texts from official portals to ascertain final directions.
Multi-forum geographic spread. The 12 rulings span five forums — Chhattisgarh High Court (Cases 1, 2, 3, 5), Jammu & Kashmir High Court (Cases 4 and 7), Madhya Pradesh High Court (Cases 8 and 12), Calcutta High Court (Cases 9 and 10), Jharkhand High Court (Case 11), and ITAT Kolkata (Case 6) — indicating that Section 11(6) appointment petitions are filed across multiple jurisdictions and are not concentrated in any single court.

How to use this compilation

This index is a starting point for primary-source research, not a substitute for it. Every entry above is derived from the TaxNoticeAI structured corpus, which itself sources material from indiankanoon.org and official court portals. Before relying on any ruling in a filing, advisory memo, or submission, researchers should retrieve the full text of the original order or judgment from the relevant court or tribunal portal, confirm that the order has not been stayed, reversed, or modified in subsequent proceedings, and check whether any appeal or challenge is pending before a higher forum.

Because the source previews for all 12 cases in this dataset are truncated, the substantive reasoning and final directions of each court are not fully captured above. Researchers working on arbitrator appointment questions — including issues around the eligibility of a party-nominated or institutionally designated arbitrator, the scope of the court's inquiry at the Section 11(6) stage, and the interplay with Section 12(5) — should treat the entries above as case identifiers only and proceed to the full judgment text for analysis.

When tracking Section 11(6) jurisprudence over time, note that High Court benches across India may take differing positions on procedural and substantive questions — such as the prima facie examination of the arbitration agreement, the treatment of limitation objections, and the effect of pending Section 8 applications — before those questions are resolved by Supreme Court authority. It is advisable to check rulings from multiple High Courts and the Supreme Court when building a comprehensive research note on any contested interpretive issue.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Section 11(6) Arbitration & Conciliation Act: 12 HC Rulings on Arbitrator Appointment (2025–2026)