arbitrability - The Legal Chamber

The Supreme Court held that a party cannot raise a plea of estoppel against law after its own conduct induced the other party to alter its position to its detriment. The doctrine of election and estoppel by conduct precludes a party from approbating and reprobating, thereby preventing it from challenging the validity of a compromise decree it had previously accepted. Facts Of The Case: The respondents, claiming the appellants had been removed as trustees, filed a suit for a perpetual injunction to restrain them from entering a school run by Guru Tegh Bahadur Charitable Trust. The Trial Court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, holding the suit was barred by Section 92 CPC. During the pendency of the respondents' appeal against this order, the parties mutually appointed a sol...

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), ...

Tag: arbitrability

“Courts Can’t Decide Arbitrability” Supreme Court Clarifies Arbitrator Appointment Scope Under Section 11 Arbitration Act