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 Holds Referral Court Must Decide Existence of Arbitration Agreement in Pre-Referral Jurisdiction

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 

Supreme Court of India clarified the jurisdiction of referral courts in pre-referral stage matters concerning the existence and validity of arbitration agreements. The bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar delivered the judgment, setting aside the impugned order of the High Court of Delhi.

The case, Magic Eye Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Green Edge Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., revolved around the issue of whether the court should decide the existence and validity of an arbitration agreement at the pre-referral stage or leave it to the arbitral tribunal.

 The appellant contended that Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration Act, as inserted by the Arbitration and Conciliation Amendment Act, 2015, requires the referral court to conclusively determine the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement. They argued that the issue goes to the root of the matter and should not be left to the arbitral tribunal.

 The respondents, on the other hand, contended that the agreements in question were interconnected, and therefore, the presence of an arbitration clause in one agreement necessitated the consideration of all agreements collectively.

 Examining the provisions of Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration Act, the Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction of the court under Section 11(6) is limited to examining the existence of an arbitration agreement. Post the 2015 amendment, the court's role is confined to determining the existence and not the validity of the arbitration agreement.

 The Court further clarified that while the court can prima facie examine the non-arbitrability of a dispute, the issue of the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement must be conclusively decided by the referral court at the pre-referral stage.

 he Supreme Court found that the referral court had failed to decide conclusively on the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement, as observed in the impugned order. Therefore, the Court set aside the order and remitted the case back to the referral court for fresh consideration, directing it to conclusively decide the issue within three months.

 The judgment provides significant guidance on the jurisdiction of referral courts in pre-referral stage matters related to the existence and validity of arbitration agreements. It ensures that the referral court's role is focused on conclusively deciding the issue of existence and leaves the non-arbitrability of disputes to be examined by the arbitral tribunal.

Date of Decision: May 12, 2023

Magic Eye Developers Pvt. Ltd.   VS M/s. Green Edge Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Etc. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Latest Legal News