Indian arbitration law - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Reins In Judicial Intervention in Arbitration After Appointment

17Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Reins In Judicial Intervention in Arbitration After Appointment

This Supreme Court judgment holds that a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement has no legal right to be present in the arbitral proceedings as the award would not bind them, violating the confidentiality mandate under Section 42A. Furthermore, a court becomes functus officio after appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and cannot entertain subsequent applications for intervention or issue ancillary directions. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an oral family settlement between Pawan Gupta (PG) and Kamal Gupta (KG), later recorded in a Memorandum of Understanding/Family Settlement Deed (MoU/FSD) dated 09.07.2019, which was not signed by KG’s son, Rahul Gupta (RG). PG initiated proceedings under Section 11(6) of the Arbitra...

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...

“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), ...