Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 31-07-2026

Case Overview

  • Petition filed by Mrs. Rhuti Kumari (Petitioner) under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator for a dispute arising from the User's License Agreement last revised on 01.08.2023.
  • Respondent: M/s. Zanmai Labs Pvt Ltd, represented by Managing Director Mr. Nischal Shetty, operating a cryptocurrency exchange platform.
  • Petitioner’s counsel, Mr. D. Ravichander, stated that the petitioner sells computer hardware devices and had become a registered user of the respondent’s platform, entering into the User Agreement.
  • Earlier, the petitioner filed a Section 9 application seeking a restraining order against the respondent and its directors; the Court on 25.10.2025 ordered the respondent to furnish a bank guarantee or place the amount in escrow until arbitration concluded.
  • The petitioner invoked Section 21, nominating a senior advocate as sole arbitrator; the respondent rejected the claim.
  • Petitioner argued that the arbitration clause, which incorporated SIAC Rules and designated Singapore as the seat, was frustrated due to high litigation costs and unfair hearing procedures after amendment of SIAC Rules, and therefore the Court should appoint an arbitrator under Section 11.
  • Respondent counsel, Mr. Vishnu Mohan, contended that the application under Section 11 is inapplicable because the arbitration is foreign‑seated, falling under Part‑II of the Act, and that the petitioner cannot unilaterally alter the seat, governing law, or arbitration procedure.
  • The Court examined the arbitration clause (Clause 14.1(ii)) which provides for final and binding arbitration under SIAC Rules, read with the Indian Arbitration Act, with a sole arbitrator appointed by the President of SIAC and the seat in Singapore.
  • The Court noted that incorporation of SIAC Rules by reference and the agreement that the Indian Act also applies does not convert a foreign‑seated arbitration into an Indian‑seated one; consequently, Part‑II of the Act governs.
  • Citing the Apex Court judgment (2025 SCC Online SC 2517), the Court held that Section 11, located in Part‑I, is only available for Indian‑seated arbitrations and is therefore not maintainable in this case.
  • The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the clause is frustrated, stating that if the clause is frustrated, the petitioner cannot rely on any part of it to seek appointment of an arbitrator.

Final Outcome

  • The petition under Section 11(6) is dismissed with no order as to costs.
  • Any connected applications, if any, stand closed.

Topics: Arbitration, Court Proceedings