Regenta Hotels Private Limited v. Hotel Grand Centre Point - 2026 INSC 32 - Ss.9,21 Arbitration Act

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 9,11,21- The commencement of arbitral proceedings is a statutory event defined exclusively under Section 21, wherein the respondent’s receipt of a request to refer the dispute to arbitration sets the arbitral proceedings in motion and no judicial application i.e. whether under Section 9 or Section 11 petition, constitutes commencement. Therefore, the statutory consequences tied to commencement, including the mandate under Section 9(2), must be assessed solely with reference to the date of receipt of request invoking arbitration under Section 21. (Para 23) Arbitration (Proceedings Before the Courts) Rules, 2001-Rule 9(4) - Section 9 does not provide for the consequences of non-compliance with its mandate of commencing arbitral proceedings within ninety days, however, the said vacuum stands statutorily filled through Rule 9(4) - The expression “initiated” has necessarily to be read as “commenced” within the meaning of Section 21 -Upon failure to commence arbitral proceedings within three months, the period stipulated under Rule 9(4) attracts the consequence as provided therein, namely, the interim order shall stand vacated automatically. (Para 27)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 9- In absence of any other provision providing for the date of commencement of the arbitral proceedings, Section 21 is to be construed to apply to all the provisions of the Act unless specifically provided as not applicable. The only exception that is carved out in Section 21 pertains to the arbitral agreement itself, providing that unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the date of commencement of arbitral proceedings must be from the date when notice or request invoking arbitration is received by the respondent. (Para 24)

Words and Phrases - The term “initiation” connotes the act of causing something to begin or taking the first step towards beginning a process, whereas “commencement” denotes the actual beginning of the process itself, which is a step further than mere initiation. Thus, linguistically, initiation precedes commencement. [In this case, SC held that for the purposes of Rule 9(4), the expression “initiated” has necessarily to be read as “commenced” within the meaning of Section 21 of the Act]