Arbitration Agreement - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Ruling: Courts Must Appoint Arbitrator Even If Serious Fraud is Alleged

5Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ruling: Courts Must Appoint Arbitrator Even If Serious Fraud is Alleged

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that under Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration Act, a court's role is prima facie confined to examining the existence of an arbitration agreement. All other contentious issues, including allegations of serious fraud and non-arbitrability, are jurisdictional matters that must be decided by the arbitral tribunal under Section 16. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, entered into agreements with various rice millers for the custom milling of paddy procured from farmers. The agreements contained an arbitration clause. When the millers allegedly failed to deliver the stipulated quantity of rice, the Corporation initiated recovery proceedings under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914. The millers challe...

No Arbitration Without Clear Agreement: When Does a Dispute Clause Become Binding? Supreme Court’s Latest Verdict Explained

The Supreme Court held that Clause 13 of the contract, which stated disputes "may be sought through arbitration," did not constitute a binding arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The use of "may" indicated no mandatory intent to arbitrate, requiring further mutual consent. The Court emphasized that an arbitration agreement must reflect a clear, unequivocal commitment to resolve disputes through arbitration, excluding domestic courts. Mere enabling language without obligation is insufficient. The High Court’s dismissal of the arbitration application was upheld. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose between BGM & M-RPL-JMCT (JV) (Appellant) and Eastern Coalfields Limited (Respondent) over a contract for transportation/handling of goods. T...

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

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), ...