! "# $% #& ' $ ( ) *) + , - . // ! ))) 001 & "2'3 4 + + ))) #'0$ # "2'3 ( 5 / ) + + + + + 6 ) 2 7 13 ! " # $ # ! " # % & % ' " # ( " )* ) )+ , - . % / 01 !23 ) )! ) 4 % % # ( " )* ) )+ ,+. CHETAN THAKUR 2026.08.12 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. % / **+ ' " % # % / 5 % ( " % # % ,+. % / **+ % % % 6 7 2 1 # ( " )* ) )+ ,+. % / **+ ' " % # % / 8 # % # # ' " ! & # # " # 0 / % / **+ % % 9 % % % 5 :% / ! " # $ # "%& & ( " ;9(i) Whether the High Court possessed the jurisdiction to review or recall its earlier order passed under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act, and whether the exercise of such power was valid in law. xxx$xxx$xxx$xxx 11.7. Although the power exercised by the High Court under Section 11 is judicial in nature post $ SBP & Co. case, its scope remains narrow. Once an arbitrator is appointed, the arbitral process must proceed unhindered. There is no CHETAN THAKUR 2026.08.12 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. statutory provision for review or appeal from an order under Section 11, which reflects a conscious legislative choice. xxx$xxx$xxx$xxx

11.15. For the reasons discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that the High Court did not have the jurisdiction to reopen or review its earlier order passed under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act. Once the appointment was made, the court became functus officio and could not sit in judgment over the very issue it had already settled. The review order cuts against the grain of the Act, undermines the principle of minimal judicial interference, and effectively converts the review into an appeal in disguise. Such an exercise cannot stand. Accordingly, this issue is answered in the negative”. xxx$xxx$xxx$xxx + 1 # ( " )* ) )+ / % ,+. % / **+ & % 9 % ' " # ( " & / # " ( " % / **+ / % functus officio " ' " # ( " % 3 / 9 7 # % 2 + + 3 ) *) 8#" 8 9:7 < ' "= > =8 < % > =8 CHETAN THAKUR 2026.08.12 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

! "# $% #& ' $ ( ) *) + , - . // ! ))) 001 & "2'3 4 + + ))) #'0$ # "2'3 ( 5 / ) + + + + + 6 ) 2 7 13 ! " # $ # ! " # % & % ' " # ( " )* ) )+ , - . % / 01 !23 ) )! ) 4 % % # ( " )* ) )+ ,+. CHETAN THAKUR 2026.08.12 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. % / **+ ' " % # % / 5 % ( " % # % ,+. % / **+ % % % 6 7 2 1 # ( " )* ) )+ ,+. % / **+ ' " % # % / 8 # % # # ' " ! & # # " # 0 / % / **+ % % 9 % % % 5 :% / ! " # $ # "%& & ( " ;9(i) Whether the High Court possessed the jurisdiction to review or recall its earlier order passed under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act, and whether the exercise of such power was valid in law. xxx$xxx$xxx$xxx 11.7. Although the power exercised by the High Court under Section 11 is judicial in nature post $ SBP & Co. case, its scope remains narrow. Once an arbitrator is appointed, the arbitral process must proceed unhindered. There is no CHETAN THAKUR 2026.08.12 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. statutory provision for review or appeal from an order under Section 11, which reflects a conscious legislative choice. xxx$xxx$xxx$xxx

11.15. For the reasons discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that the High Court did not have the jurisdiction to reopen or review its earlier order passed under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act. Once the appointment was made, the court became functus officio and could not sit in judgment over the very issue it had already settled. The review order cuts against the grain of the Act, undermines the principle of minimal judicial interference, and effectively converts the review into an appeal in disguise. Such an exercise cannot stand. Accordingly, this issue is answered in the negative”. xxx$xxx$xxx$xxx + 1 # ( " )* ) )+ / % ,+. % / **+ & % 9 % ' " # ( " & / # " ( " % / **+ / % functus officio " ' " # ( " % 3 / 9 7 # % 2 + + 3 ) *) 8#" 8 9:7 < ' "= > =8 < % > =8 CHETAN THAKUR 2026.08.12 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.