CRP/4381/2025 of M/s. WAVE AQUATIC PRIVATE LIMITED Vs M/s. THE WATERBASE LIMITED on 16 October 2026

ORDER

The Revision Petition had been filed challenging an interim order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal wherein the claim of the petitioner therein under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act’) had been rejected and an application had been filed seeking for an extension of the mandate by the respondent in the Civil Petition. The application under Section 29A of the Act had been filed by the claimant and the Civil Revision Petition had been filed by the respondent before the Arbitral Tribunal and hence, they are referred to hereunder as per their ranks before the Arbitral proceedings.

2. Heard Mr.Shiren R.Dave, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Mohik Kumar and Mr.Aniruth Krishnan, learned counsels appearing for the respondent/applicant.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would submit that the claimant had initiated multiple proceedings arising out of an agreement that had been entered between the parties and the initiation of the arbitration proceedings, is an attempt made by the claimant is nothing short of

forum shopping and in that regard he would submit that the arbitral proceeding itself is an attempt to arm twist the respondent. That apart, he would submit that there is no disputes that is to be resolved through arbitration and the Arbitrator had also not filed his declaration as required under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act, which is a mandatory requirement. Hence, he had taken out an application under Section 16 of the Act before the learned Arbitrator, which without any reasons whatsoever had been rejected to by the learned Arbitrator through a non- speaking order which is wholly arbitrary and without application of mind. Hence, he prays this Court to set aside the order impugned in the Revision and as a consequence there is no necessity for the mandate to be extended and in that regard to dismiss the claim for extension of the mandate.

4. Countering his arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant would submit that the Revision Petition itself is not maintainable in law. He would submit that when an order is passed under Section 16 of the Act rejecting the plea, then it is incumbent upon the Arbitral Tribunal to continue the arbitral proceedings and make an arbitral Award and the same could only be challenged after the final Award is passed under Section 34 of the Act. In that regard, he would submit that the present Revision Petition itself is wholly not maintainable and prays this Court to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. That apart, he would submit that only by the conduct of the respondent, the arbitral proceeding could not be concluded within the mandatory period hence, he prays

this Court to extend the mandate.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record before this Court.

6. Admittedly, an order has been passed under Section 16 of the Act is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. Section 16 empowers the Arbitral Tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction including the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. Sub Section 5 of the said Provision envisages that if a claim had been made under Sub-Section 2 & 3 of Section 16, as regards to the jurisdiction, is rejected then the arbitral proceedings could be continued and an arbitral Award can be made. There is no Provision of an Appeal under Section 37 of an interim order that is passed under Section 16. Article 227 of Constitution of India cannot be permitted to be exercised in an arbitral proceedings where there is no provision of Appeal, as it has been repeatedly held that any order passed under Section 16 rejecting the plea therein could only be raised as a ground after the final Award is passed and challenged under Section 34 of the Act.

7. In that regard, this Court is of the view that the Revision Petition as filed by the respondent would not be maintainable however, he is at liberty to

raise the grounds raised in the Revision, if he fails in the arbitral proceedings and challenge the Award in the manner known to law.

8. In view of the order passed above, this Court also finds no impediment in extending the mandate of the learned Arbitrator as the proceedings which have come into being had to meet its logical conclusion.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with liberty as indicated supra and the A.No.2044 of 2026 stands allowed extending the mandate for a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Pbn To

1. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.

K.KUMARESH BABU, J. PBN CRP No. 4381 of 2025 A.No.2044 of 2026 and CMP.No.22415 of 2025