2025 SCC Vol. 9 Part 1
2025 SCC Vol. 9 Part 1: Explore the latest Supreme Court Cases on Constitution, Arbitration and Conciliation, Motor Vehicles Act, and Criminal Law.
arbitration agreement
Courts can decide arbitrability of disputes under Section 8 Arbitration Act; Bombay HC holds Redemption of Mortgage disputes non-arbitrable
“It was not disputed that the plaintiff’s prayer in the suit for recovery of the amount would be arbitrable. However, the plaintiff also sought redemption of mortgages executed in its favour and this was where the plaintiff claimed that the said claim was not arbitrable.”
“Consent” in Arbitration Agreement — Substance Prevails Over Form: Crystallisation of Indian Jurisprudence
by Vasanth Rajasekaran* and Harshvardhan Korada**
‘Use of ‘may’ in alleged arbitration clause doesn’t indicate clear intention to refer dispute to arbitration’; SC upholds Calcutta HC’s verdict
“Similarly, a clause which states that “if the parties so decide, the disputes shall be referred to arbitration” or “any disputes between parties, if they so agree, shall be referred to arbitration” would not constitute an arbitration agreement”.
Arbitrator’s discretion to fix venue/seat of arbitration cannot override parties’ exclusive jurisdiction clause in arbitration agreement: Delhi HC
When parties agree to vest exclusive jurisdiction in a particular court for any dispute arising out of the arbitration clause, it must be presumed that they intended that court only to have supervisory control.
Delhi High Court: WhatsApp and Email Exchanges May Constitute Arbitration Agreement if Statutory Conditions Are Met
The Court noted that under Section 7(4)(b) of the Arbitration Act it is not necessary to conclude a contract for the arbitration agreement contained within it to be valid. The arbitration agreement must form a part of documents/communication exchange between the parties.
Explained | Supreme Court decision on scope & ambit of Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act
“There is no need for an explicit written arbitration agreement to attract Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act. The provision creates a legal fiction as regards the existence of an arbitration agreement”
Non-issue of notice to certain parties under S. 21 of A&C Act does not strip the Arbitral Tribunal of its jurisdiction to implead: SC
“Section 21 does not expressly mandate the claimant to send a notice invoking arbitration to the respondents. However, the provision necessarily mandates such notice, as its receipt by the respondent is required to commence arbitral proceedings”.
SC stresses on judicial restraint in arbitration matters; sets aside HC’s order granting opportunity for cross-examination despite Arbitral Tribunal’s rejection
The Court examined the question that whether the High Court correctly exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 in granting the respondent one more opportunity to cross-examine the appellant’s witness, despite the Arbitral Tribunal rejected such a prayer.
‘Existence of arbitration agreement in license agreement and share subscription agreement not in dispute’, Supreme Court refers matter to DIAC for appointment of sole arbitrator
“We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of either party including regarding the arbitrability of the dispute. All contentions and pleas are kept open for the parties to raise before the arbitral tribunal.”
Express designation of place in an arbitration agreement is an appropriate criterion to determine Seat of Arbitration: SC
The Court clarified that the ‘Closest Connection Test’ for determining the seat of arbitration is no longer a viable criterion for determination. The seat of arbitration cannot be determined by formulaic and unpredictable application of choice of law rules based on abstract connecting factors to the underlying contract.
Supreme Court explains how Non-Signatories may be bound by Arbitration Agreements
The Supreme Court elucidated the key factors through which the intention of the parties to be bound by an arbitration agreement can be gauged.
Enforcement of foreign awards may be refused for bias only in exceptional circumstances: Supreme Court
Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision and emphasised the need for early enforcement of the foreign award by the competent forum.
Application for Interim Measures by Non-Signatories to an Arbitration Agreement: A Continuing Enigma?
by Kunal Mimani† and Kartikey Bhatt††
Supreme Court 5-Judge Bench Ruling on Group of Companies Doctrine: What You Need to Know
“Even though a subsidiary derives interests or benefits from a contract entered into by the company within a group, they would not be covered under the expression “claiming through or under” merely on the basis that it shares a legal or commercial relationship with the parties.”
Group of Companies Doctrine applicable in Indian Arbitration Jurisprudence; Can bind non-signatory parties to Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court 5 Judge Bench
“The approach in Chloro Controls India Private Limited v. Severn Trent Water Purification, (2013) 1 SCC 641 to the extent that it traces the group of companies doctrine to the phrase ‘claiming through or under’ as given under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act was erroneous and against the well settled principles of contract in commercial law”.
Competence-Competence Doctrine in Indian Arbitration Law Jurisprudence: An In-Depth Analysis
by Vasanth Rajasekaran* and Harshvardhan Korada**
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 79
[Unstamped Arbitration Agreement] Bombay High Court fixes deficiency of stamp duty and penalty
The Bombay High Court explained that if it was to consider the instant application under Section 11 of A&C Act, it would have to work on the deficiency of stamp duty and penalty, if any.
Seat of arbitration once fixed by the arbitration agreement, has the exclusive jurisdiction for applications u/s 11 of the A&C Act, 1996: Rajasthan High Court
“The Court observes that the ‘contrary indicia’ is clearly reflected in the present case, because the seat was mentioned as Bikaner and venue was mentioned as New Delhi.”