Skip to main content

Referral Court Has Duty To Conclusively Decide Issue Of ‘Existence & Validity Of Arbitration Agreement’

Cause Title : Magic Eye Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s. Green Edge Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., SLP (C) Nos. 18339-42/2021, Supreme Court Of India

Date of Judgment/Order :

Corum :  M.R. Shah & C. T. Ravikumar, J.

Citied: 

  1. Vidya Drolia and Ors. Vs. Durga Trading Corporation, (2021) 2 SCC 1
  2. N.N. Global Mercantile Private Limited Vs. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. and Ors., 2023 SCC Online SC 495
  3. NTPC Ltd. Vs. SPML Infra Ltd., 2023 SCC Online SC 389 (paragraphs 19, 25 and 28)
  4. Chloro Controls India Private Limited Vs. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. and Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 641
  5. Olympus Superstructures (P) Ltd. Vs. Meena Vijay Khetan, (1999) 5 SCC 651

Background

The issue was that when dispute arose between litigants, the appellant herein (original respondent) had argued that the final MOU did not contain any arbitral agreement while the respondent herein  (original applicant) the final MOU is interlinked with previous agreements which had arbitral clause.

The original applicant had approached the High Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act for appoint of arbitrators. Before the High Court the appellant herein specifically raised an objection with regard to the existence of an arbitration agreement/clause. The High Court deciding that the arbitrability of the dispute is an involved issue and can be addressed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal, referred the disputes for arbitration and appointed the arbitrator. Hence this appeal.

Judgment

The Supreme Court observed that the short question which is posed for the consideration of this Court is, the jurisdiction of the referral court at pre-referral stage when the issue with respect to the existence and validity of an arbitration agreement is raised.

Section 11 refers to the procedure for Appointment of arbitrators and the actions to be taken when parties and/or the arbitrators fail to agree with the procedure/appointments. At this stage the matter is said to be pre-referral.

As per the settled position of law, pre-referral jurisdiction of the court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act is very narrow and inheres two inquiries. The primary inquiry is about the existence and the validity of an arbitration agreement, which also includes an inquiry as to the parties to the agreement and the applicant’s privity to the said agreement. The Secondary inquiry that may arise at the reference stage itself is with respect to the non-arbitrability of the dispute. Both are different and distinct. 

So far as the non-arbitrability of the dispute is concerned, the court at pre-referral stage and while examining the jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Act may even consider prima facie examining the arbitrability of claims. The prima facie review at the reference stage is to cut the deadwood and trim off the side branches in straightforward cases where dismissal is barefaced and pellucid and when on the facts and law the litigation must stop at the first stage. 

However, so far as the dispute with respect to the existence and validity of an arbitration agreement is concerned and when the same is raised at pre-referral stage, the referral court has to decide the said issue conclusively and finally and should not leave the said issue to be determined by the arbitral tribunal. The reason is that the issue with respect to the existence and validity of an arbitration agreement goes to the root of the matter. Sans an agreement, there cannot be any reference to the arbitration. The intention behind the insertion of Section 11(6A) in the Act was to confine the Court, acting under Section 11, to examine and ascertain about the existence of an arbitration agreement.

Setting aside the order of the High Court, the SC observed that if the dispute/issue with respect to the existence and validity of an arbitration agreement is not conclusively and finally decided by the referral court while exercising the pre-referral jurisdiction under Section 11(6) and it is left to the arbitral tribunal, it will be contrary to Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration Act. It is the duty of the referral court to decide the said issue first conclusively to protect the parties from being forced to arbitrate when there does not exist any arbitration agreement and/or when there is no valid arbitration agreement at all.


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more