Overturning the finding rendered by the
Brief Facts:
In view of the aforesaid, NCCL invoked arbitration under the terms of the contracts, pursuant to which IOCL referred the matters to its General Manager to decide the arbitrability of NCCL's claims which ultimately came to be dismissed as non-arbitrable under all 5 contracts.
It is imperative to mention here that the contracting parties had specifically excluded the following disputes from the scope of the arbitration agreement:
- Scope or existence of the arbitration agreement
- Whether the Claim sought to be referred to arbitration is a Notified Claim
- Whether the Notified Claim is included in NCCL's final bill raised
- Whether NCCL has opted for alternative dispute resolution with respect to the Notified Claims included in NCCL's final bill
Being aggrieved, NCCL approached the
Appellant's Submissions:
The gist of the submissions made by the Appellant was that in contracts where the parties agree to an arbitration clause but also agree that only certain specified disputes arising out of the agreement would be arbitrable, this would mean that no arbitration clause exists in respect of the remaining disputes and such disputes would be termed as 'excepted disputes'. Therefore, such an arbitration clause is a restricted arbitration clause and the same would not lead to the invocation of Section 11 (6-A) of the Act and the question of referring such excepted disputes to arbitration does not arise.
Respondent's Submissions:
The Respondent's key submission was that the Court cannot look into the conclusion of accord and satisfaction between the parties at the referral stage. Further, the Court's role, in view of S.11 (6-A), is limited to the examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement. In view of the same, the Court cannot look into what an excepted claim is or not.
Findings & Analysis of the Court:
The
- The parties to a contract are free to agree on the applicability of (a) the proper law of contract; (b) the proper law of the arbitration agreement; and (c) the proper law of conduct of the arbitration. Further, the parties are also at liberty to exclude certain matters from the scope of arbitration.
-
The Court was not in consonance with the judgment of the
Delhi High Court as it was of the opinion that theHigh Court had misinterpreted the arbitration clause of the agreement and had erred in holding that the Notified Claims would fall within the ambit of the arbitration agreement, despite the same being specifically excluded and falling under the term 'excepted matters'. -
In doing so, it further held, that the
High Court erred in referring the dispute to arbitration and appointing a sole arbitrator to adjudicate on the dispute with respect to the claims which were held to be not Notified Claims by the General Manager. -
Furthermore, the
Supreme Court was not agreeable to the Respondent's submission that a Section 11 Court cannot look into the conclusion of 'accord and satisfaction' of the claims and held that at the referral stage, the Court may prima facie consider this issue. - As state above, it was held that the question of jurisdiction and arbitrability can be decided by the Court at the referral stage and the Court is not restricted to ascertaining only the existence and the validity of an arbitration agreement between the disputing parties.
Comments:
In furtherance to the Vidya Drolia2 judgment, the
Footnotes
1 Civil Appeal Nos. 341 to 345 of 2022
2 Vidya Drolia v Durga
3 2021 SCC OnLine SC 781
The content of this document do not necessarily reflect the views/position of Khaitan & Co but remain solely those of the author(s). For any further queries or follow up please contact Khaitan & Co at legalalerts@khaitanco.com
Mr
One Indiabulls Centre
13th Floor, Tower 1
841 Senapati Bapat Marg
400 013
Tel: 226636 5000
Fax: 226636 5050
E-mail: bdo@khaitanco.com, Nilanjan.ghose@khaitanco.com
URL: www.khaitanco.com
© Mondaq Ltd, 2022 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source