Applicability of Order VII Rule 11 CPC in Arbitration Proceedings
Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 prescribes grounds under which a
court may reject a plaint in a civil suit. The grounds for rejection include:
a. Plaint does not disclose cause of action, [Rule 11 (a)]
b. Undervaluation of relief, [Rule 11 (b)]
c. insufficient stamping, [Rule 11 (c)]
d. suit being barred by law, [Rule 11 (d)]
e. Other grounds.
The provisions of Rule 11 are not exhaustive and the court has got inherent powers to see that
vexations litigations are not allowed to take or consume the time of the court. The provision is
strictly procedural and designed to prevent frivolous litigation and protect defendants from
contesting a non-maintainable suit through protracted proceedings.
Relevant Provisions from Arbitration Act
1. Section 16: Kompetenz-Kompetenz: the tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction,
including objections to the existence/validity/scope of the arbitration agreement and
arbitrability. Use this for “bar by law” that is jurisdictional (e.g., non-arbitrable subject,
statutory ouster).
2. Section 19 (1): “The arbitral tribunal shall not be bound by the CPC or the Evidence
Act.” This rules out filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 before the tribunal.
3. Section 19 (3): Not bound, but not barred - The tribunal is free from the strict rigour of
the CPC/Evidence Act. But as the Supreme Court said in Srei Infrastructure Finance
Ltd. v. Tuff Drilling Pvt. Ltd., (2018) 11 SCC 470, S.19 “cannot be read to mean that
the tribunal is incapacitated from drawing sustenance from the fundamental principles” of
those statutes.
Discretion to adopt procedure: Unless parties agree otherwise, the arbitrator decides how
to handle pleadings and evidence. That discretion is wide enough to allow summary
disposal of claims that are plainly barred in law, essentially an Order VII Rule 11(like
dismissal.)
Can Order VII Rule 11 CPC Application Be Filed Before an
Arbitrator?
Order VII Rule 11 CPC is not directly applicable to arbitral tribunals. The arbitrator is governed
by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and not by the CPC provisions unless specifically
incorporated.The procedure under the Arbitration Act is distinct. Section 16 of the Act grants the
arbitral tribunal the power to rule on its own jurisdiction, including objections to the existence or
validity of the arbitration agreement.
When the matter is already before an arbitrator, procedural remedies analogous to Order VII
Rule 11 CPC do not exist. Instead, the parties may raise preliminary objections about
maintainability or jurisdiction under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act, which the arbitrator is
empowered to decide or a Section 19(3) procedural application to summarily dismiss/strike
claims that disclose no cause or are barred by limitation or by law, with the Limitation Act
applied via Section 43. That achieves the same result as Order VII Rule 11, using the correct
arbitral law tools.
Conclusion
An arbitral tribunal in India cannot entertain an application “under Order VII Rule 11 CPC” as
such because it is not bound by the CPC. Such applications are maintainable only in civil courts.
In arbitration, objections as to maintainability must be raised under Section 16 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996, rather than invoking Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and/or a Section
19(3) procedural application to summarily dismiss/strike claims that disclose no cause or are
barred by limitation or by law, with the Limitation Act applied via Section 43. That achieves the
same result as Order VII Rule 11, using the correct arbitral law tools.
References:
1. Chokhi Dhani vs. JS Construction (16.08.2022 - MPHC) : MANU/MP/2559/2022
The Court held that an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC before an
arbitrator is not maintainable as such. However, if it essentially raises objections to
jurisdiction or competence of the arbitrator, it will be treated as a Section 16 Arbitration
Act application. The remedy then lies only under Section 34 after the award.
2. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd vs. H.B.T. GMBH and Ors. (27.02.2025 -
TLHC) : MANU/TL/0038/2025
The judgment held that CPC remedies (like plaint rejection under Order 7 Rule 11) are
court-centric, while arbitration-specific issues (jurisdiction, validity of agreements under
Section 16 of A&C Act) are reserved for tribunals under the statutory framework of the
Arbitration Act.
3. Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited vs. Tuff Drilling Private Limited (20.09.2017 -
SC) : MANU/SC/1272/2017
25. There cannot be a dispute that the power exercised by the arbitral tribunal is a quasi-
judicial. In view of the provisions of the 1996 Act, which confers various statutory
powers and obligations on the arbitral tribunal, we do not find any such distinction
between the statutory tribunal constituted under the statutory provisions or Constitution
in so far as the power of procedural review is concerned. We have already noticed that
Section 19 provides that an arbitral tribunal shall not be bound by the Rules of
procedure as contained in Code of Civil Procedure. Section 19 cannot be read to mean
that arbitral tribunal is incapacitated in drawing sustenance from any provisions of Code
of Civil Procedure. This was clearly laid down in Nahar Industrial Enterprises Limited v.
Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, MANU/SC/1330/2009 : (2009) 8 SCC
646. In Paragraph 98(n), following was stated:
(n) It is not bound by the procedure laid down under the Code. It may however be
noticed in this regard that just because the Tribunal is not bound by the Code, it does not
mean that it would not have jurisdiction to exercise powers of a court as contained in the
Code. "Rather, the Tribunal can travel beyond the Code of Civil Procedure and the only
fetter that is put on its powers is to observe the principles of natural justice," (See
Industrial Credit and Investment Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Grapco Industries Ltd.)
4. Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund vs. Neelkanth Realty Private Ltd. and Ors.
(02.04.2025 - BOMHC) : MANU/MH/1992/2025
19. In the backdrop of the aforementioned well settled legal position, we now examine
whether a ground under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) for interference with the impugned interim
award is made out. An award shall be treated to be in conflict with public policy of India
if it is in contravention of fundamental policy of Indian law or is in conflict with most
basic notions of morality or justice. The phrase 'fundamental policy of Indian law
requires a Court or other authority determining the rights of citizen to adopt a judicial
approach. The expression 'fundamental policy of Indian law would include within its
ambit a decision which is so perverse or irrational that no reasonable person would
arrive at the same. Thus, the Arbitrator, while deciding the issue of limitation is required
to adopt a judicial approach. Even though Section 19(1) of the 1996 provides that
arbitral tribunal shall not be bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or by the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, however, Section 19(1) does not prohibit the arbitral tribunal
from following the fundamental principles underlying the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 or
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
