Panchayat Law | Mandatory Compliance With Section 34 And Rule 3 Is Non-Negotiable In Resignation Cases: Bombay High Court Quashes Resignation Of Upa-Sarpanch Recovery of Bullet Fired from Accused’s Weapon Crucial: PH High Court Reaffirms Conviction in Murder Case Injured Witness Evidence Carries Built-in Reliability Unless Contradicted Significantly: Kerala High Court Partly Allows Appeal in Murder Case Civil Dispute with Criminal Elements Cannot Be Quashed Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.: Karnataka High Court Issuance of Summons Under Section 91 CrPC During Preliminary Verification is Without Jurisdiction: High Court of J&K and Ladakh Article 21 Prevails Over NDPS Act’s Section 37 Restrictions in Cases of Prolonged Incarceration: Delhi High Court Once a Property is Waqf, It Remains Waqf Perpetually: Calcutta High Court Affirms No Secular Ownership Can Derive from Waqf Properties Surveillance Without Opportunity to Object Violates Articles 14, 19, and 21: Allahabad High Court Quashes Class-B History Sheets Mandatory Provisions of Order XXI CPC Were Violated, Rendering the Auction Sale Illegal: Punjab and Haryana High Court Unreasonable Assumptions Cannot Deny Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Claim National Security Cannot Be Compromised: Orissa High Court Denies Bail in ISI-Linked Conspiracy Case Specific Performance is a Discretionary Relief; Delay and Inaction Will Disentitle Relief: Karnataka High Court Agreement to Sell Does Not Confer Any Title or Interest in Property: Gujarat High Court FIR Quashed | Breach of Contract Does Not Attract Criminal Prosecution for Cheating Unless Fraudulent Intention Exists at the Outset: Calcutta High Court Strict Compliance with Advertisement Terms Mandatory - Submission of PAP Certificate Along with Application is a Mandatory Requirement: Bombay High Court Termination of Judicial Probationer Quashed: Principles of Article 311(2) and Natural Justice Upheld by Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Presence at the Scene Is Insufficient to Prove Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC: Kerala High Court Acquits Two Co-Accused in Murder Case

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Similar News