arbitration clause - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court: Subsequent Contracts Don’t Override Original Arbitration Agreement

9Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Subsequent Contracts Don’t Override Original Arbitration Agreement

The Supreme Court held that Part I of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, including Section 11, does not apply to a foreign-seated international commercial arbitration. The arbitration clause in the principal "mother agreement" governs, and subsequent ancillary contracts with different parties cannot novate it or confer jurisdiction on Indian courts. Facts Of The Case: The petitioner, Balaji Steel Trade, entered into a Buyer and Seller Agreement (BSA) dated 06.06.2019 with respondent no. 1, Fludor Benin S.A., for the supply of cottonseed cake, containing an arbitration clause specifying arbitration in Benin. An Addendum was later executed. Subsequently, respondent no. 1 assigned its supply obligations. The petitioner then entered into separate Sales Contracts with r...

Supreme Court Dismisses Arbitration Petition Due to Limitation Issues

29Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Arbitration Petition Due to Limitation Issues

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court held that the underlying claim for recovery of money was hopelessly barred by limitation, rendering the appointment of an arbitrator untenable in law. Facts Of The Case: The case involves a dispute arising from a partnership deed containing an arbitration clause. The petitioner, residing in the UK, entered into a partnership with the respondent on 20.09.2014, succeeding an earlier partnership involving the petitioner’s sister. The petitioner alleged that he paid substantial sums amounting to Rs. 2.31 crores, relying on a clause entitling him to 75% of profits from a property purchased on 04.05.2016, but received nothing. The partnership wa...

Supreme Court Strikes Down Unilateral Arbitration Clauses, Upholds Neutral Appointments

19Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Strikes Down Unilateral Arbitration Clauses, Upholds Neutral Appointments

This Supreme Court judgment affirms that a unilateral arbitration clause granting one party the sole power to appoint an arbitrator is invalid. Following the Constitution Bench in CORE, the Court held that an ineligible person (such as a Managing Director) cannot nominate a sole arbitrator, as it raises justifiable doubts regarding impartiality under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd., filed petitions before the Delhi High Court under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to terminate the mandate of a sole arbitrator. This arbitrator had been unilaterally appointed by the Managing Director of the respondent, Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd., pursuant to Clause 9.03...

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

14Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

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...

Supreme Court Rules: GMADA Not Liable for Homebuyers’ Loan Interest in Delayed Housing Project

16Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: GMADA Not Liable for Homebuyers’ Loan Interest in Delayed Housing Project

The Supreme Court ruled that while consumer commissions can award compensation for deficiency in service, including mental harassment and litigation costs, they cannot award interest on a loan taken by the consumer in addition to the stipulated contractual interest (8% compounded annually) on the refunded amount. The Court emphasized that the awarded interest sufficiently compensates for the deprivation of investment, and awarding interest under multiple heads for the same default is unsustainable. Facts Of The Case: The Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) launched a residential scheme called 'Purab Premium Apartments' in 2011. Anupam Garg and Rajiv Kumar (respondents) applied for flats, with Anupam Garg paying an earnest money of ₹5,50,000 for a 2-BHK + Servant Room apar...

SARFAESI Act’s Section 11: Supreme Court Affirms Mandatory Arbitration for Financial Institutions

11Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

SARFAESI Act’s Section 11: Supreme Court Affirms Mandatory Arbitration for Financial Institutions

The Supreme Court, in Bank of India vs. M/s Sri Nangli Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd., ruled that Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act is mandatory, requiring inter-se disputes between banks and financial institutions concerning secured assets to be resolved through arbitration. No explicit arbitration agreement is needed; the provision legally mandates it, thereby divesting DRT of jurisdiction in such matters. Facts Of The Case: In the case of Bank of India vs. M/s Sri Nangli Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., the core dispute involved the priority of charge over secured assets (stocks of paddy and rice) belonging to a common borrower, M/s Sri Nangli Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd., between two public sector banks: Bank of India (appellant) and Punjab National Bank (respondent). Both banks had extended credit facil...

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

17May

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

“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), ...