In a significant ruling on arbitration law, the Supreme Court has set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that had allowed a fresh arbitrator to be appointed in an already litigated dispute. The Court made it clear that a party cannot revive the same dispute after abandoning earlier arbitration proceedings.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose between Rajiv Gaddh (appellant) and Subodh Parkash (respondent) over joint business dealings linked to land in Hoshiarpur, Punjab. The parties had entered into multiple agreements in 2013, which included an arbitration clause to resolve disputes.
The respondent initially invoked arbitration in 2015, leading to the appointment of an arbitrator. However, during the proceedings, the respondent stopped participating and even questioned the arbitrator’s authority, eventually refusing to continue.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Holds MHA Competent to Initiate Disciplinary Action Against AGMUT IAS Officers
Despite this, the arbitrator proceeded and passed an award in 2020, ruling in favour of the appellant while dismissing the respondent’s claims.
Later, in 2021, the respondent issued a fresh notice seeking arbitration again and approached the High Court for appointment of a new arbitrator.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the respondent’s plea in November 2024 and appointed a fresh arbitrator. It held that issues like res judicata (whether a matter has already been decided) need not be examined at the stage of appointing an arbitrator and could be left to the arbitral tribunal.
The Supreme Court closely examined whether the respondent could initiate arbitration again after abandoning the earlier proceedings.
The bench observed that the respondent’s conduct clearly showed he had walked away from the arbitration process. Referring to records, the Court noted that the respondent had explicitly informed the arbitrator that he would not participate further.
“The material on record clearly indicates abandonment of the earlier arbitration proceedings,” the bench noted.
On the issue of filing a fresh application, the Court explained that under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, a party cannot start fresh proceedings on the same cause of action unless permission is granted earlier.
The Court further clarified that:
“The subsequent application was based on the same cause of action and is barred… A litigant cannot be permitted to abuse the process of the Court.”
Importantly, the Court rejected the argument that a fresh cause of action arose after its earlier 2021 judgment related to the land auction. It held that the dispute between the parties was separate and not dependent on that judgment.
The Supreme Court held that the respondent’s second application for appointment of an arbitrator was not maintainable.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the High Court’s order dated November 8, 2024, and allowed the appeal, with no order as to costs.
Case Details
Case Title: Rajiv Gaddh v. Subodh Parkash
Case Number: Civil Appeal (arising out of SLP (C) No. 4430 of 2025)
Judges: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha & Justice Alok Aradhe
Decision Date: April 1, 2026
