The Supreme Court ruled that under Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration Act, courts must limit their examination to the existence of an arbitration agreement and cannot decide arbitrability or exclude claims as “excepted matters” at the appointment stage. Citing the 7-judge bench in In Re: Interplay and 3-judge bench in SBI General Insurance, it held that arbitral tribunals—not courts—must determine whether claims fall under non-arbitrable categories. The judgment clarifies that courts cannot bifurcate claims into arbitrable/non-arbitrable during arbitrator appointments, ensuring minimal judicial interference at the referral stage.
Facts Of The Case:
The dispute arose from a contractual agreement between Office for Alternative Architecture (Appellant) and IRCON Infrastructure (Respondent), which contained an arbitration clause (Clause 50). The appellant initiated arbitration, raising multiple claims, but the Delhi High Court, while appointing an arbitral tribunal under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, excluded certain claims (paras 48(ii)-(iv)) as “non-arbitrable” under Clause 50.2 of the agreement. The appellant challenged this exclusion, arguing that Section 11(6A) limits courts to examining only the existence of an arbitration agreement, not arbitrability. The respondent relied on Emaar India Ltd. v. Tarun Aggarwal (2023) to justify the High Court’s bifurcation of claims.
The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, holding that:
-
Section 11(6A) (inserted by the 2015 Amendment) confines courts to verifying the arbitration agreement’s existence—not adjudicating arbitrability.
-
The 7-judge bench in In Re: Interplay (2023) and 3-judge bench in SBI General Insurance (2024) affirmed that courts cannot decide whether claims are “excepted matters” or non-arbitrable at the referral stage.
-
The arbitral tribunal—not courts—must determine if claims fall under excluded categories.
The Court allowed the appeal, reinstating all claims for arbitration and clarifying that judicial intervention under Section 11 is strictly limited.
Procedural History:
The case originated when the Office for Alternative Architecture (Appellant) filed an arbitration claim against IRCON Infrastructure (Respondent) under their contractual agreement’s arbitration clause. The Delhi High Court, while appointing an arbitral tribunal under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, bifurcated the claims in its order dated 06.09.2023, excluding certain matters (paras 48(ii)-(iv)) as “non-arbitrable” based on contractual Clause 50.2.
The appellant challenged this exclusion via Special Leave Petition (C) No. 28104/2023 before the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court overstepped its Section 11(6A) mandate by adjudicating arbitrability. The Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. [X] of 2025, examined whether courts can exclude claims at the referral stage, relying on precedents like the 7-judge bench decision in In Re: Interplay (2023) and the 3-judge bench ruling in SBI General Insurance (2024).
On 13.05.2025, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s exclusion of claims. It held that Section 11(6A) restricts courts to verifying the arbitration agreement’s existence, leaving arbitrability for the tribunal to decide. The Court directed that all claims be referred to arbitration, reaffirming minimal judicial interference at the appointment stage.
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, underscored that Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration Act mandates a limited judicial role—confined solely to examining the existence of an arbitration agreement, not delving into claim arbitrability. Citing the 7-judge bench in In Re: Interplay (2023), the Court clarified that “other issues” (including arbitrability) must be decided by the arbitral tribunal, not courts at the referral stage. It rejected the High Court’s bifurcation of claims into arbitrable/non-arbitrable categories, noting such an approach contravenes the pro-arbitration ethos of the 2015 Amendment. The Bench highlighted that contractual exceptions (like Clause 50.2) or “excepted matters” are for tribunals—not courts—to evaluate. The judgment reaffirmed the finality of arbitral tribunals’ jurisdiction under Section 16, stressing that courts must avoid “gatekeeping” claims during arbitrator appointments. By overturning the Delhi High Court’s order, the Supreme Court reinforced the principle that judicial intervention under Section 11 is procedural, not substantive, ensuring arbitration remains a swift and autonomous dispute-resolution mechanism.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Delhi High Court’s order dated 06.09.2023 to the extent it excluded certain claims as non-arbitrable. In its final judgment dated 13.05.2025 (Civil Appeal arising from SLP(C) No. 28104/2023), the Court held:
-
The High Court erred in examining arbitrability of claims under Section 11, as its jurisdiction was limited to verifying the existence of the arbitration agreement per Section 11(6A).
-
All claims raised by the appellant, including those previously excluded (paras 48(ii)-(iv)), were restored for arbitration.
-
The arbitral tribunal was empowered to independently determine whether any claims fell under “excepted matters” (Clause 50.2) without being influenced by the High Court’s observations.
-
The judgment reaffirmed the legislative intent behind the 2015 Amendment to minimize judicial interference at the referral stage, consistent with the 7-judge bench decision in In Re: Interplay.
-
No costs were awarded, preserving the parties’ right to raise all contentions before the tribunal.
The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the Section 11 proceedings and wouldn’t prejudice merits-based determinations by the arbitral tribunal. Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra pronounced the unanimous judgment, reinforcing arbitration’s autonomy under Indian law.
Case Details:
Case Title: Office for Alternative Architecture vs. IRCON Infrastructure and Services Ltd. Citation: 2025 INSC 665 (Supreme Court of India) Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.: SLP (C) No. 28104 of 2023 Date of Judgment: May 13, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra
Download The Judgement Here