https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789357 A fresh application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was treated as barred where the claimant had abandoned the earlier arbitral proceedings without liberty to start again. The Court noted that Section 11 jurisdiction remains limited to the existence of an arbitration agreement, but principles similar to Order 23 Rule 1 CPC may apply when a party clearly gives up prior proceedings. Abandonment is not to be inferred lightly, yet a clear communication refusing further participation, read with surrounding conduct, can establish it. The later application was also not saved by the end of unrelated auction litigation, because the underlying dispute between the parties remained the same. The subsequent application was therefore not maintainable. en-us Wed, 01 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Apr 2026 16:37:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789357 A fresh application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was treated as barred where the claimant had abandoned the earlier arbitral proceedings without liberty to start again. The Court noted that Section 11 jurisdiction remains limited to the existence of an arbitration agreement, but principles similar to Order 23 Rule 1 CPC may apply when a party clearly gives up prior proceedings. Abandonment is not to be inferred lightly, yet a clear communication refusing further participation, read with surrounding conduct, can establish it. The later application was also not saved by the end of unrelated auction litigation, because the underlying dispute between the parties remained the same. The subsequent application was therefore not maintainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 01 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789357