Punjab & Haryana High Court Appoints Arbitrator In Shareholder Dispute Over Chairmanship Rotation In KPH Dream Cricket
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, on 23rd December 2025, appointed Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu as the sole arbitrator to resolve a dispute over the "rotational chairmanship" of KPH Dream Cricket Private Limited, the company that owns and administers the IPL franchise - Punjab Kings. Additionally, the Court noted that when appointing an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, on 23rd December 2025, appointed Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu as the sole arbitrator to resolve a dispute over the "rotational chairmanship" of KPH Dream Cricket Private Limited, the company that owns and administers the IPL franchise - Punjab Kings. Additionally, the Court noted that when appointing an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the role of the judiciary is restricted to the determination of the arbitration agreement's existence rather than conducting a “mini trial” thorough examination of the merits or arbitrability.
Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri rendered this decision while allowing a petition filed by Karan Paul, a shareholder-director of the firm who had filed an application for the appointment of an arbitrator under Clause 67 of the company's Articles of Association.
The dispute involves the stakeholders of KPH Dream Cricket Private Limited, specifically, the petitioner, Karan Paul, who owns a 6% share in the company. Citing Clause 67 of the Articles of Association (AoA), Paul petitioned the High Court for the appointment of an arbitrator to settle disputes regarding the "rotational chairmanship" of the firm. The majority shareholders, Mohit Burman and Ness Wadia, opposed the referral, arguing on the grounds of dispute being 'non-arbitrable” as it involved issues of corporate management and oppression.
The central issue was whether the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, can reject the appointment of an arbitrator on the ground that the dispute is not arbitrable or that alternate remedies under company law are available.
Senior Advocate Puneet Bali, appearing for Karan Paul, contended that Clause 67 expressly covers disputes pertaining to the company's operations and the Court ought to appoint an independent arbitrator.
Senior Advocates Anand Chhibbar and Amit Jhanji, representing the stakeholders and the company, argued that the dispute was non-arbitrable, as it was about internal management decisions amounting to mismanagement and oppression for which the Companies Act provides remedies. They further argued that the petitioner's previous withdrawal of a Section 9 application and the rejection of a related civil suit barred the present proceedings.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court comprising of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, reaffirming that the recent jurisprudence has considerably reduced the extent of judicial interference under Section 11, stated that the referral court is restricted to examine the existence of a prima facie arbitration agreement and not other issues, citing Supreme Court's ruling in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning and Office for Alternative Architecture v. Ircon Infrastructure and Services Ltd.
"This Court under Section 11 of the Act at the reference stage is not to look into as to whether the dispute is arbitrable or not and...would not hold a mini trial in this regard," the Court further held.
Citing Supreme Court decisions, the court reaffirmed that the Arbitral Tribunal has the power to make decisions based on the competence-competence principle on whether the dispute is one of "oppression and mismanagement" or a contractual disagreement under the Articles of Association.
The Court further held that whether the “case of oppression and mismanagement and a petition under the Companies Act could have been filed, the same is also not sustainable in view of the fact that oppression and mismanagement cannot be looked into by this Court as it pertains to arbitrability of the dispute and at this stage, only existence of arbitration clause is to be seen”.
Subsequently, finding the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and had been duly invoked, the Court allowed the petition. Following this, Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu (Retd.), a former Punjab and Haryana High Court judge, has been appointed by the court as the sole arbitrator.
Case Title: Karan Paul v. KPH Dream Cricket Private Limited & Ors.
Case No.: ARB-327-2025 (O&M)
Court: High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Coram: Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Date of Decision: December 23, 2025
Appearances: For Petitioner: Mr. Puneet Bali, Mr. Kunal Vajani,
Mr. Vipul Joshi, Mr. Shubhang Tandon, Mr. Ishan Puri and Ms. Favi Singla ; For Respondents: Mr. Deepak Sabharwal, Mr. Amit Jhanji, Mr. Shrey Goel, Mr. Ankur Sehgal, Mr. Shubham Mahajan (for respondent No.2); Mr. Anand Chhibbar, Mr. Amitabh Tewari (for respondent No.3); Mr. Sangram S. Saron, and Mr. M. B. Rajwade (for respondent No.4).