{"id":203947,"date":"2018-10-18T15:30:40","date_gmt":"2018-10-18T10:00:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=203947"},"modified":"2018-10-22T15:19:07","modified_gmt":"2018-10-22T09:49:07","slug":"arbitration-clause-non-assignable-held-does-not-devolve-on-company-being-separate-entity-from-proprietorship-firm-delhi-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/18\/arbitration-clause-non-assignable-held-does-not-devolve-on-company-being-separate-entity-from-proprietorship-firm-delhi-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"Arbitration clause non-assignable; held, does not devolve on company being separate entity from proprietorship firm: Delhi HC"},"content":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court: <\/strong>A Single Judge Bench comprising of Pratibha M. Singh, J. allowed an appeal filed by the Government of NCT of Delhi which challenged the award passed by a sole arbitrator.<\/p>\n

The brief facts were that the Government called a tender for providing sanitation and scavenger services inside and outside the building including reception services from designated places for the Delhi Sachivalaya\/Secretariat, IP Estate, New Delhi. The tender proforma contained various terms and conditions. One Yasikan Enterprises \u2013 a sole proprietary concern of Jagdish Kumar submitted his offer.\u00a0 The contract for sanitation services was entered into with Yasikan Enterprises. The contractor started raising bills. It was the Government\u2019s case that the contractor was entitled to only a sum of Rs 73,652 per month as per the calculation submitted, based on measurements provided by Public Works Department. The contractor claimed that he was entitled to Rs 2,63,982 per month. The disputes between the parties were referred to arbitration in terms of the arbitration clause. However, it is pertinent to note that the arbitration clause was invoked by Yasikan Enterprises (P) Ltd. which was a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. A representation was made to the Lieutenant Governor invoking arbitration and vide letter dated 24th September 2004, the Arbitrator was appointed. The appellant submitted that there was no arbitration clause with the company Yasikan Enterprises (P) Ltd. The contract was awarded to the firm Yasikan Enterprises, which was a sole proprietary concern.<\/p>\n

The High Court perused the record and observed that as per Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, every arbitration agreement has to be in writing between the parties. It also has to be signed by the parties. In the present case, there was no arbitration agreement signed between the appellant and Yasikan Enterprises (P) Ltd. The company was not awarded the contract. The offer was submitted by Yasikan Enterprises as a sole proprietary firm. It was signed by Jagdish Kumar as the sole proprietor. The company being a distinct legal entity from the sole proprietorship, the arbitration clause, in the Court\u2019s opinion, did not devolve upon the company. Moreover, the arbitration clause is an independent clause which is not assignable. The Court held the reference to arbitration was contrary to law. Furthermore, on merits as well, the order impugned was found liable to be set aside. Orders were made accordingly. The appeal was, thus, allowed. [Govt. (NCT of Delhi) v. Yasikan Enterprises (P) Ltd.,2018 SCC OnLine Del 11918<\/b><\/a>, dated 16-10-2018]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Pratibha M. Singh, J. allowed an appeal filed by the Government of NCT <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[10111,23324,31135],"class_list":["post-203947","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-arbitration-agreement","tag-arbitration-clause","tag-sole-arbitrator"],"yoast_head":"\nArbitration clause non-assignable; held, does not devolve on company being separate entity from proprietorship firm: Delhi HC | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/18\/arbitration-clause-non-assignable-held-does-not-devolve-on-company-being-separate-entity-from-proprietorship-firm-delhi-hc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Arbitration clause non-assignable; held, does not devolve on company being separate entity from proprietorship firm: Delhi HC\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Pratibha M. Singh, J. allowed an appeal filed by the Government of NCT\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/18\/arbitration-clause-non-assignable-held-does-not-devolve-on-company-being-separate-entity-from-proprietorship-firm-delhi-hc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2018-10-18T10:00:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-22T09:49:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1329\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"888\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2018\\\/10\\\/18\\\/arbitration-clause-non-assignable-held-does-not-devolve-on-company-being-separate-entity-from-proprietorship-firm-delhi-hc\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2018\\\/10\\\/18\\\/arbitration-clause-non-assignable-held-does-not-devolve-on-company-being-separate-entity-from-proprietorship-firm-delhi-hc\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"headline\":\"Arbitration clause non-assignable; held, does not devolve on company being separate entity from proprietorship firm: Delhi HC\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-10-18T10:00:40+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-22T09:49:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2018\\\/10\\\/18\\\/arbitration-clause-non-assignable-held-does-not-devolve-on-company-being-separate-entity-from-proprietorship-firm-delhi-hc\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":430,\"commentCount\":0,\"keywords\":[\"arbitration agreement\",\"arbitration clause\",\"Sole Arbitrator\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"High Courts\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2018\\\/10\\\/18\\\/arbitration-clause-non-assignable-held-does-not-devolve-on-company-being-separate-entity-from-proprietorship-firm-delhi-hc\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2018\\\/10\\\/18\\\/arbitration-clause-non-assignable-held-does-not-devolve-on-company-being-separate-entity-from-proprietorship-firm-delhi-hc\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2018\\\/10\\\/18\\\/arbitration-clause-non-assignable-held-does-not-devolve-on-company-being-separate-entity-from-proprietorship-firm-delhi-hc\\\/\",\"name\":\"Arbitration clause non-assignable; held, does not devolve on company being separate entity from proprietorship firm: Delhi HC | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2018-10-18T10:00:40+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-22T09:49:07+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2018\\\/10\\\/18\\\/arbitration-clause-non-assignable-held-does-not-devolve-on-company-being-separate-entity-from-proprietorship-firm-delhi-hc\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2018\\\/10\\\/18\\\/arbitration-clause-non-assignable-held-does-not-devolve-on-company-being-separate-entity-from-proprietorship-firm-delhi-hc\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2018\\\/10\\\/18\\\/arbitration-clause-non-assignable-held-does-not-devolve-on-company-being-separate-entity-from-proprietorship-firm-delhi-hc\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Arbitration clause non-assignable; held, does not devolve on company being separate entity from proprietorship firm: Delhi HC\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/editor_1\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Arbitration clause non-assignable; held, does not devolve on company being separate entity from proprietorship firm: Delhi HC | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/18\/arbitration-clause-non-assignable-held-does-not-devolve-on-company-being-separate-entity-from-proprietorship-firm-delhi-hc\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Arbitration clause non-assignable; held, does not devolve on company being separate entity from proprietorship firm: Delhi HC","og_description":"Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Pratibha M. Singh, J. allowed an appeal filed by the Government of NCT","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/18\/arbitration-clause-non-assignable-held-does-not-devolve-on-company-being-separate-entity-from-proprietorship-firm-delhi-hc\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2018-10-18T10:00:40+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-22T09:49:07+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1329,"height":888,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/18\/arbitration-clause-non-assignable-held-does-not-devolve-on-company-being-separate-entity-from-proprietorship-firm-delhi-hc\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/18\/arbitration-clause-non-assignable-held-does-not-devolve-on-company-being-separate-entity-from-proprietorship-firm-delhi-hc\/"},"author":{"name":"Bhumika Indulia","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"headline":"Arbitration clause non-assignable; held, does not devolve on company being separate entity from proprietorship firm: Delhi HC","datePublished":"2018-10-18T10:00:40+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-22T09:49:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/18\/arbitration-clause-non-assignable-held-does-not-devolve-on-company-being-separate-entity-from-proprietorship-firm-delhi-hc\/"},"wordCount":430,"commentCount":0,"keywords":["arbitration agreement","arbitration clause","Sole Arbitrator"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","High Courts"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/18\/arbitration-clause-non-assignable-held-does-not-devolve-on-company-being-separate-entity-from-proprietorship-firm-delhi-hc\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/18\/arbitration-clause-non-assignable-held-does-not-devolve-on-company-being-separate-entity-from-proprietorship-firm-delhi-hc\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/18\/arbitration-clause-non-assignable-held-does-not-devolve-on-company-being-separate-entity-from-proprietorship-firm-delhi-hc\/","name":"Arbitration clause non-assignable; held, does not devolve on company being separate entity from proprietorship firm: Delhi HC | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2018-10-18T10:00:40+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-22T09:49:07+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/18\/arbitration-clause-non-assignable-held-does-not-devolve-on-company-being-separate-entity-from-proprietorship-firm-delhi-hc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/18\/arbitration-clause-non-assignable-held-does-not-devolve-on-company-being-separate-entity-from-proprietorship-firm-delhi-hc\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/18\/arbitration-clause-non-assignable-held-does-not-devolve-on-company-being-separate-entity-from-proprietorship-firm-delhi-hc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Arbitration clause non-assignable; held, does not devolve on company being separate entity from proprietorship firm: Delhi HC"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":293883,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/06\/contract-in-name-of-president-not-immune-against-conflict-of-interest-of-parties-supreme-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":203947,"position":0},"title":"Whether contracts entered in name of President are immune from provisions protecting against conflict of interest of a party to contract? Supreme Court answers","author":"Apoorva","date":"June 6, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court refused to give effect to the appointment of an officer of the Ministry of Law and Justice as an arbitrator.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"contract entered in name of president","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/contract-entered-in-name-of-president.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/contract-entered-in-name-of-president.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/contract-entered-in-name-of-president.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/contract-entered-in-name-of-president.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":243660,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/10\/del-hc-on-invocation-of-arbitration-clause-if-a-party-appoints-arbitrator-on-its-own-and-does-not-receive-confirmation-from-another-party-should-former-approach-court-under-s-11-of-arbitration-ac\/","url_meta":{"origin":203947,"position":1},"title":"Del HC | On invocation of arbitration clause, if a party appoints arbitrator on its own and does not receive confirmation from another party, should former approach Court under S. 11 of Arbitration Act? HC discusses","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 10, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: Kameswar Rao, J., decided a petition wherein on the invocation of the arbitration clause, one of the parties appointed the sole arbitrator on its own. The instant petition was filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Petitioner and the respondents entered into a\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":293987,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/06\/delhi-court-sets-aside-90-lakh-arbitral-award-bmw-india-financial-services\/","url_meta":{"origin":203947,"position":2},"title":"Delhi Court sets aside ₹90 lakh award granted in favour of BMW India Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.","author":"Editor","date":"June 6, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Unilateral Appointment of the Sole Arbitrator vitiates the proceedings of Arbitration.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Patiala House Courts","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-774.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-774.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-774.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-774.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":281140,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/06\/delhi-high-court-appoints-sole-arbitrator-purchase-order-does-not-supersede-contract-arbitration-clause-legalawareness-legalnews-legalresearch\/","url_meta":{"origin":203947,"position":3},"title":"Purchase orders do not in any manner supersede the contract between the parties; Delhi High Court holds arbitration clause in contract valid","author":"Editor","date":"January 6, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The parties may choose to enter two different contracts covering the same transaction at different points of time, however, the purchase orders do not in any manner supersede the contract between the parties.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":282379,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/24\/delhi-high-court-rules-reiterates-former-clause-to-prevail-over-latter-in-case-of-inconsistency-between-arbitration-clauses-in-an-agreement-legalnews-legalresearch-legalawareness\/","url_meta":{"origin":203947,"position":4},"title":"[Arbitration Agreement] Delhi High Court reiterates the law of interpretation with respect to two inconsistent clauses of a same instrument\/document\/deed","author":"Editor","date":"January 24, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Where there exists any iota of inconsistency between two provisions of a same instrument, the former clause shall prevail over the latter one","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":280692,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/30\/arbitration-agreement-is-a-separate-agreement-distinct-from-the-main-contract-delhi-high-court-refers-the-parties-to-arbitration-under-a-non-binding-term-sheet\/","url_meta":{"origin":203947,"position":5},"title":"\u2018Arbitration Agreement is a separate agreement distinct from the main contract\u2019; Delhi High Court refers the parties to arbitration under a \u2018Non-Binding Term Sheet\u2019","author":"Editor","date":"December 30, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court, while exercising powers under Section 11 of the Act, can refuse to refer the parties to arbitration only where \u201cit is manifestly and ex facie certain that the arbitration agreement is nonexistent, invalid or the disputes are non-arbitrable, though the nature and facet of non-arbitrability would, to some\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203947","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=203947"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203947\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=203947"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=203947"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=203947"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}