{"id":281140,"date":"2023-01-06T12:00:13","date_gmt":"2023-01-06T06:30:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=281140"},"modified":"2023-01-07T16:38:43","modified_gmt":"2023-01-07T11:08:43","slug":"delhi-high-court-appoints-sole-arbitrator-purchase-order-does-not-supersede-contract-arbitration-clause-legalawareness-legalnews-legalresearch","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"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\/","title":{"rendered":"Purchase orders do not in any manner supersede the contract between the parties; Delhi High Court holds arbitration clause in contract valid"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

   <\/p>\n

Delhi High Court:<\/b> In a petition filed by the petitioner engaged in the business of providing cranes of various types and capacity on hire basis under Section 11<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> seeking appointment of the sole arbitrator in terms of Clause 10 of the contract between the parties, Mini Pushkarna, J., appointed Justice Jayant Nath (Retired), Former Judge of the present Court as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.<\/p>\n

The Respondent is engaged in the business of constructing, developing, operating and maintaining wind power projects in India. The parties entered business negotiations leading to Respondent issuing a Purchase Order which further led to the execution of a contract.<\/p>\n

It is the case of the petitioner that as per Clause 3.1 of the Contract, ‘the right to way’ to the project site for installation and demobilization of the cranes was to be provided by the respondent, which could not be done due to protest from local vendors of the respondent who did not allow the petitioner to get access and move its crane and equipment from the site. Despite numerous communications, the hire charges were not paid by the respondent.<\/p>\n

Thus, a notice was sent by the petitioner invoking the arbitration clause which was refused by the respondent stating that the petitioner did not send the notice of the dispute to the respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition was filed.<\/p>\n

Counsel for the respondent submitted that the present petition is not maintainable as parties have not submitted themselves to the process of arbitration in relation to the disputes raised by the petitioner, the relationship between the parties arises out of and is governed by the purchase orders issued and executed between the parties and there exists no arbitration clause in the said purchase orders.<\/p>\n

The Court noted that examination of the contract and the purchase orders clearly exhibits that they relate to the same purpose and are between the same parties. Therefore, the contract dated 18.01.2021 and the purchase orders are intrinsically intertwined with each other and are connected fundamentally to the transaction between the parties for hiring of crane packages by the respondent from the petitioner company.<\/p>\n

The Court further noted that the purchase orders issued by the respondent cannot be said to be independent of the contract dated 18-01-2021. The purchase orders have been issued by the respondent based on and in pursuance of the contract dated 18-01-2021. Thus, the contract dated 18-01-2021 is the main agreement executed between the parties and the purchase orders are part of the services required under the main agreement.<\/p>\n

The Court recorded that even if the purchase order dated 28-12-2020 was issued prior to the contract dated 18-01-2021, the intention of the parties can clearly be gauged from their conduct and the documents on record.<\/p>\n

The Court remarked that the fact that in the contract dated 18-01-2021, it is stated that the respondent company has made an advance payment of Rs. 31,86,000\/- to the contractor towards one time mobilisation charges on 31-12-2020, vide the purchase order dated 28-12-2020. Hence, the purchase orders are clearly connected and linked to the contract between the petitioner and the respondent.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that the parties may choose to enter in 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.<\/p>\n

Thus, the Court held that the purchase orders having been issued based on the contract between the parties, the parties would be governed by the arbitration clause as contained in the contract, even though the arbitration clause is not specifically incorporated in the purchase orders.<\/p>\n

[Sanghvi Movers Limited v. Vivid Solaire Energy Private Limited, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4423<\/a>, decided on 15-12-2022<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

Mr. Sandeep P. Agarwal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Niyati Kohli, Mr. Pratham Vir Agarwal and Ms. Tanya, Advocates for the Petitioner;<\/p>\n

Mr. Sandeep P. Agarwal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Niyati Kohli, Mr. Pratham Vir Agarwal and Ms. Tanya, Advocates for the Respondent.<\/p>\n\n

*Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":279267,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[3226,23324,3174,2543,49552,54264,4041],"class_list":["post-281140","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-arbitration","tag-arbitration-clause","tag-contract","tag-Delhi_High_Court","tag-purchase-order","tag-supersession","tag-validity"],"yoast_head":"\nPurchase orders do not in any manner supersede the contract between the parties; Delhi High Court holds arbitration clause in contract valid | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In a petition filed by the petitioner engaged in the business of providing cranes of various types and capacity on hire basis under Section 11\" \/>\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\/2023\/01\/06\/delhi-high-court-appoints-sole-arbitrator-purchase-order-does-not-supersede-contract-arbitration-clause-legalawareness-legalnews-legalresearch\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Purchase orders do not in any manner supersede the contract between the parties; Delhi High Court holds arbitration clause in contract valid\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In a petition filed by the petitioner engaged in the business of providing cranes of various types and capacity on hire basis under Section 11\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"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\/\" \/>\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=\"2023-01-06T06:30:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-01-07T11:08:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"391\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"311\" \/>\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=\"4 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\/2023\/01\/06\/delhi-high-court-appoints-sole-arbitrator-purchase-order-does-not-supersede-contract-arbitration-clause-legalawareness-legalnews-legalresearch\/\",\"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\/\",\"name\":\"Purchase orders do not in any manner supersede the contract between the parties; Delhi High Court holds arbitration clause in contract valid | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"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\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"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\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-01-06T06:30:13+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-01-07T11:08:43+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"In a petition filed by the petitioner engaged in the business of providing cranes of various types and capacity on hire basis under Section 11\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"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\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"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\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"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\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg\",\"width\":391,\"height\":311,\"caption\":\"Delhi High Court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"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\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Purchase orders do not in any manner supersede the contract between the parties; Delhi High Court holds arbitration clause in contract valid\"}]},{\"@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":"Purchase orders do not in any manner supersede the contract between the parties; Delhi High Court holds arbitration clause in contract valid | SCC Times","description":"In a petition filed by the petitioner engaged in the business of providing cranes of various types and capacity on hire basis under Section 11","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\/2023\/01\/06\/delhi-high-court-appoints-sole-arbitrator-purchase-order-does-not-supersede-contract-arbitration-clause-legalawareness-legalnews-legalresearch\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Purchase orders do not in any manner supersede the contract between the parties; Delhi High Court holds arbitration clause in contract valid","og_description":"In a petition filed by the petitioner engaged in the business of providing cranes of various types and capacity on hire basis under Section 11","og_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\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-01-06T06:30:13+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-01-07T11:08:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":391,"height":311,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"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":"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\/","name":"Purchase orders do not in any manner supersede the contract between the parties; Delhi High Court holds arbitration clause in contract valid | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"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\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"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\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg","datePublished":"2023-01-06T06:30:13+00:00","dateModified":"2023-01-07T11:08:43+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"In a petition filed by the petitioner engaged in the business of providing cranes of various types and capacity on hire basis under Section 11","breadcrumb":{"@id":"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\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["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\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"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\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg","width":391,"height":311,"caption":"Delhi High Court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"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\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Purchase orders do not in any manner supersede the contract between the parties; Delhi High Court holds arbitration clause in contract valid"}]},{"@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\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":294206,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/08\/arbitration-clause-in-a-contract-will-perish-with-its-novation-delhi-high-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":281140,"position":0},"title":"Arbitration Clause in a contract will perish with its novation: Delhi High Court","author":"Simranjeet","date":"June 8, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Where parties decide to put an end to the original contract as if it never existed and substituted a new contract with it, then in such a situation the original contract is extinguished by the substituted one and the arbitration clause of the original one perishes with it.","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\/2023\/05\/delhi-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\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":203947,"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\/","url_meta":{"origin":281140,"position":1},"title":"Arbitration clause non-assignable; held, does not devolve on company being separate entity from proprietorship firm: Delhi HC","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 18, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: 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. The brief facts were that the Government called a tender for providing sanitation and scavenger services inside\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":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":281140,"position":2},"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":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":281140,"position":3},"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":[]},{"id":318882,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/30\/whether-arbitration-clause-from-primary-contract-gets-incorporated-into-subsequent-letter-of-intent-supreme-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":281140,"position":4},"title":"Whether an arbitration clause from a primary contract gets incorporated into a subsequent Letter of Intent? Supreme Court answers","author":"Apoorva","date":"March 30, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court said that when there is a reference in the second contract to the terms and conditions of the first contract, the arbitration clause would not ipso facto be applicable to the second contract unless there is a specific mention\/reference thereto.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"arbitration clause","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/arbitration-clause.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/arbitration-clause.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/arbitration-clause.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/arbitration-clause.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"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":281140,"position":5},"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":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/281140","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=281140"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/281140\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/279267"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=281140"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=281140"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=281140"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}