MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Supreme Court Deems Pre-Deposit Arbitration Conditions Unconstitutional: Fundamental Rights Paramount in Arbitration Agreements

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark decision on November 6, the Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, along with Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, ruled that pre-deposit conditions stipulated in arbitration agreements are unconstitutional, emphasizing the supremacy of fundamental rights in the context of arbitration clauses.

The Court scrutinized a pre-deposit condition under an arbitration agreement in light of Article 14 of the Constitution, stating that such conditions violate the principles of equality and are thus unconstitutional. "The Court's role in examining arbitration clauses for compliance with fundamental rights is affirmed," the bench noted, highlighting the constitutionality aspect in arbitration agreements.

Delving into the intricacies of legal theory, the Court applied Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law, affirming the Indian Constitution as the paramount Grundnorm. "Our Constitution is the paramount source of law in our country. All other laws assume validity because they are in conformity with the Constitution," the Court observed.

In an unprecedented move, the Court emphasized the non-waivability of fundamental rights in the context of arbitration agreements, stating, "There can be no waiver of fundamental rights." This observation underscores the Court's commitment to ensuring that arbitration agreements do not undermine constitutional guarantees.

Addressing the validity of arbitrator appointments, the Court stressed the importance of independence, particularly under circumstances raising doubts about their impartiality. "Neutrality of arbitrators is essential for the integrity of the arbitration process," the judgment read.

In a comprehensive analysis, the Court also referred to international perspectives on arbitration agreements, examining cases from Canada and the United States to understand the global stance on such clauses.

Concluding the proceedings, the Court appointed Mr. V.K. Bist, the Former Chief Justice of the High Court of Sikkim, as an independent arbitrator, setting a precedent for future arbitration agreements and their interpretation in the Indian legal system.

This ruling marks a significant step in arbitration law in India, ensuring that arbitration agreements align with constitutional mandates and fundamental rights, thereby reinforcing the rule of law and fair justice principles.

Date of Decision: 06 November 2023

LOMBARDI ENGINEERING LIMITED  VS UTTARAKHAND JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LIMITED 

Latest Legal News