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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more