Section 11(6) - The Legal Chamber

Mere Use of Word “Arbitration” Doesn’t Bind Parties: Key Business Contract Lesson from Supreme Court

20Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Mere Use of Word “Arbitration” Doesn’t Bind Parties: Key Business Contract Lesson from Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that Clause 8.28 did not constitute a valid arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The clause lacked essential attributes, such as finality and a binding decision by a neutral tribunal, as it ultimately permitted parties to seek remedies in civil courts if unresolved. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, M/s Alchemist Hospitals Ltd., entered into a Software Implementation Agreement with the respondent, M/s ICT Health Technology Services India Pvt. Ltd., on 1st November 2018 for upgrading its hospital-information software. Following implementation, the appellant alleged persistent technical failures and operational issues with the respondent's "HINAI Web Software," leading to the system being rolled back i...

How a Defective Arbitration Clause & the Pandemic Shaped a Landmark Supreme Court Ruling on Limitation

The Supreme Court held that an arbitration clause is not rendered invalid merely because the named arbitrator becomes statutorily ineligible; courts retain authority under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act to appoint a neutral arbitrator. Additionally, the limitation period for filing the application was extended by excluding the COVID-19 period from 15 March 2020 to 28 February 2022. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Offshore Infrastructures Limited, was awarded a contract by the respondent, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (formerly Bharat Oman Refineries Limited), for composite works at the Bina Refinery. The work, accepted on 31 December 2016, was to be completed by 30 May 2017 but was ultimately finished on 31 January 2018. The appellant raised its final bill on 20 Ma...

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...