{"id":272263,"date":"2022-08-26T09:00:23","date_gmt":"2022-08-26T03:30:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=272263"},"modified":"2022-08-26T09:00:23","modified_gmt":"2022-08-26T03:30:23","slug":"calcutta-high-court-conduct-of-parties-not-a-substitute-for-an-arbitration-agreement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/26\/calcutta-high-court-conduct-of-parties-not-a-substitute-for-an-arbitration-agreement\/","title":{"rendered":"Calcutta High Court | Conduct of Parties – not a substitute for an arbitration agreement"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

   <\/p>\n

Calcutta High Court<\/span>: While deciding a review petition, Debangsu Basak, J.<\/span> held that the court while exercising powers under Section 11<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> cannot substitute arbitration agreement with conduct of parties.<\/p>\n

Facts of the Case<\/p>\n

The respondent filed an application under Section 11<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> for the appointment of an arbitrator after a dispute arose between the parties regarding the execution of the work as per Clause 13 of the work order issued by the applicant in favor of respondent.<\/p>\n

On the direction of the Supreme Court, the applicant filed a review petition as he could not place relevant judgement before the High Court when the impugned order was passed for which he filed Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

Contention of the Parties<\/p>\n

The Applicant contended that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties and merely because the applicant did not dispute the same at the relevant stage, the Court couldn't have appointed the arbitrator.<\/p>\n

The respondent contended that since the applicant did not dispute the arbitration agreement in its pleadings, therefore, it was a consent order, and it cannot be allowed to take a different stand now. Moreover, the applicant has submitted to the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Tribunal as he filed the counter claim and also, filed an application under Section 16<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The respondent also contended that if there is a dispute regarding the existence of arbitration agreement, the same shall be determined by the Arbitration Tribunal.<\/p>\n

Observation and Analysis:<\/p>\n

The Court observed that as per Clause 13, the option of arbitration was only available to government enterprises and since the respondent is not a government enterprise, it cannot avail the same remedy.<\/p>\n

Relying on Pravin Electricals (P) Ltd. v. Galaxy Infra and Engineering (P) Ltd., <\/span>(2021) 5 SCC 671<\/a><\/span>, the Court held that “…the fundamental basis for referring the parties to arbitration being an arbitration agreement in writing between them, never existed between the parties for the applicant herein to waive or acquiesce any of its rights.”<\/span><\/p>\n

The Court also observed that the Court while exercising powers under Section 11<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> is bound to examine the existence of the arbitration agreement and if it is not possible for the court “to weed out manifestly and ex-facie non-existent and invalid arbitration agreements and non-arbitrable disputes”<\/span> then only it can refer the issue related to existence of arbitration agreement to the arbitrator for determination as a preliminary issue.<\/p>\n

The Court held that in absence of the agreement, the Court cannot refer the parties to arbitration merely because the respondent did not raise objections.<\/p>\n

[Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. RREPL-KIPL (JV), 2022 SCC OnLine Cal 2350<\/a><\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

*Ritu Singh, Editorial Assistant has put this report together.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Calcutta High Court: While deciding a review petition, Debangsu Basak, J. held that the court while exercising powers under Section <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":268836,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[29568,10111,10131,48887,17711,2513,51201,45421],"class_list":["post-272263","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-29568","tag-arbitration-agreement","tag-arbitration-and-conciliation-act","tag-arbitration-tribunal","tag-arbitrator","tag-Calcutta_High_Court","tag-conduct-of-parties","tag-section-11"],"yoast_head":"\nCalcutta High Court | Conduct of Parties - not a substitute for an arbitration agreement | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"While deciding a review petition, Debangsu Basak, J. held that the court while exercising powers under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act\" \/>\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\/2022\/08\/26\/calcutta-high-court-conduct-of-parties-not-a-substitute-for-an-arbitration-agreement\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Calcutta High Court | Conduct of Parties - not a substitute for an arbitration agreement\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"While deciding a review petition, Debangsu Basak, J. held that the court while exercising powers under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/26\/calcutta-high-court-conduct-of-parties-not-a-substitute-for-an-arbitration-agreement\/\" \/>\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=\"2022-08-26T03:30:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/calcutta_high_court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1331\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"889\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/26\/calcutta-high-court-conduct-of-parties-not-a-substitute-for-an-arbitration-agreement\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/26\/calcutta-high-court-conduct-of-parties-not-a-substitute-for-an-arbitration-agreement\/\",\"name\":\"Calcutta High Court | Conduct of Parties - not a substitute for an arbitration agreement | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/26\/calcutta-high-court-conduct-of-parties-not-a-substitute-for-an-arbitration-agreement\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/26\/calcutta-high-court-conduct-of-parties-not-a-substitute-for-an-arbitration-agreement\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/calcutta_high_court.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-08-26T03:30:23+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"While deciding a review petition, Debangsu Basak, J. held that the court while exercising powers under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/26\/calcutta-high-court-conduct-of-parties-not-a-substitute-for-an-arbitration-agreement\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/26\/calcutta-high-court-conduct-of-parties-not-a-substitute-for-an-arbitration-agreement\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/26\/calcutta-high-court-conduct-of-parties-not-a-substitute-for-an-arbitration-agreement\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/calcutta_high_court.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/calcutta_high_court.jpg\",\"width\":1331,\"height\":889,\"caption\":\"Calcutta High Court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/26\/calcutta-high-court-conduct-of-parties-not-a-substitute-for-an-arbitration-agreement\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Calcutta High Court | Conduct of Parties – not a substitute for an arbitration agreement\"}]},{\"@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\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Calcutta High Court | Conduct of Parties - not a substitute for an arbitration agreement | SCC Times","description":"While deciding a review petition, Debangsu Basak, J. held that the court while exercising powers under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act","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\/2022\/08\/26\/calcutta-high-court-conduct-of-parties-not-a-substitute-for-an-arbitration-agreement\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Calcutta High Court | Conduct of Parties - not a substitute for an arbitration agreement","og_description":"While deciding a review petition, Debangsu Basak, J. held that the court while exercising powers under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/26\/calcutta-high-court-conduct-of-parties-not-a-substitute-for-an-arbitration-agreement\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2022-08-26T03:30:23+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1331,"height":889,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/calcutta_high_court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/26\/calcutta-high-court-conduct-of-parties-not-a-substitute-for-an-arbitration-agreement\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/26\/calcutta-high-court-conduct-of-parties-not-a-substitute-for-an-arbitration-agreement\/","name":"Calcutta High Court | Conduct of Parties - not a substitute for an arbitration agreement | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/26\/calcutta-high-court-conduct-of-parties-not-a-substitute-for-an-arbitration-agreement\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/26\/calcutta-high-court-conduct-of-parties-not-a-substitute-for-an-arbitration-agreement\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/calcutta_high_court.jpg","datePublished":"2022-08-26T03:30:23+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"While deciding a review petition, Debangsu Basak, J. held that the court while exercising powers under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/26\/calcutta-high-court-conduct-of-parties-not-a-substitute-for-an-arbitration-agreement\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/26\/calcutta-high-court-conduct-of-parties-not-a-substitute-for-an-arbitration-agreement\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/26\/calcutta-high-court-conduct-of-parties-not-a-substitute-for-an-arbitration-agreement\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/calcutta_high_court.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/calcutta_high_court.jpg","width":1331,"height":889,"caption":"Calcutta High Court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/26\/calcutta-high-court-conduct-of-parties-not-a-substitute-for-an-arbitration-agreement\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Calcutta High Court | Conduct of Parties – not a substitute for an arbitration agreement"}]},{"@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\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/calcutta_high_court.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":287070,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/17\/arbitration-petition-calcutta-high-court-appointment-arbitrator-disqualification-section-12-seventh-schedule-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-legal-research-news-scc-online-blog\/","url_meta":{"origin":272263,"position":0},"title":"All unilateral appointments of arbitrators are not invalid: Calcutta High Court","author":"Ritu","date":"March 17, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Calcutta High Court held that all the unilateral appointment of arbitrators is not invalid unless the arbitrator's relationship falls within the Seventh Schedule to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Calcutta High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-604.jpg?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-604.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-604.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-604.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":296431,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/10\/calcutta-high-court-non-interference-preserver-arbitrator-view-unless-no-agreement\/","url_meta":{"origin":272263,"position":1},"title":"Arbitrator’s view is ultimate, not to be interfered with by Courts, unless arbitration agreement evidently absent: Calcutta High Court","author":"Ritu","date":"July 10, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Calcutta High Court held that Court should not substitute its own view, replacing that of the arbitrator, unless it is manifestly evident that there existed no agreement.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"calcutta high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":272655,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/30\/calcutta-high-court-illegal-procedure-for-appointment-of-arbitrator-does-not-render-arbitration-agreement-illegal-in-toto-guiding-principles-for-appointment-of-arbitrator-reiterated\/","url_meta":{"origin":272263,"position":2},"title":"Calcutta High Court | Illegal procedure for appointment of Arbitrator does not render Arbitration agreement illegal in toto; Guiding Principles for Appointment of Arbitrator reiterated","author":"Editor","date":"August 30, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Calcutta High Court: In a petition challenging the appointment of sole Arbitrator by the respondent, Shekhar B. Saraf, J., held that merely because an arbitration clause provides for an illegal method of appointment of arbitrator, it does not come to an end and after removing the illegal portion\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Calcutta High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/calcutta_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/calcutta_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/calcutta_high_court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/calcutta_high_court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/calcutta_high_court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":278787,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/30\/jharkhand-high-court-legal-research-legal-update-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-section-116-section-152-section-21\/","url_meta":{"origin":272263,"position":3},"title":"Jharkhand High Court | Maintainability of application under S. 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of substitute arbitrator","author":"Editor","date":"November 30, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Jharkhand High Court: While allowing the application under Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) for appointment of substitute arbitrator, a single judge bench of Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. held that since first arbitrator was appointed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act after the applicant\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Jharkhand High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image38-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":299429,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/16\/unambiguous-intent-required-for-incorporation-arbitration-clause-by-reference-calcutta-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":272263,"position":4},"title":"Unambiguous intent required for incorporating Arbitration Clause by reference under Section 7(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Calcutta High Court","author":"Ritu","date":"August 16, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"In the instant matter, the primary issue was the incorporation of arbitration clauses from the Master Facility Agreement and Settlement Agreement and the maintainability of a composite reference.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"calcutta high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":242186,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/13\/cal-hc-s-116-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-reiterating-independence-and-impartiality-of-the-arbitrator-court-appoints-former-justice-of-the-present-court-to-preside-over-as-the-sole-arbi\/","url_meta":{"origin":272263,"position":5},"title":"Cal HC | [S.11(6) Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996] Reiterating independence and impartiality of the Arbitrator, Court appoints former justice of the present court to preside over as the sole arbitrator","author":"Editor","date":"January 13, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Calcutta High Court: Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J., while allowing the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 appointed former judge of the present High Court, Sahidullah Munshi as the sole arbitrator in the present matter. In the present application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/272263","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\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=272263"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/272263\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/268836"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=272263"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=272263"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=272263"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}