{"id":318200,"date":"2024-03-23T11:00:10","date_gmt":"2024-03-23T05:30:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=318200"},"modified":"2024-03-23T10:19:28","modified_gmt":"2024-03-23T04:49:28","slug":"reference-to-document-in-contract-show-intention-incorporate-arbitration-clause-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/23\/reference-to-document-in-contract-show-intention-incorporate-arbitration-clause-supreme-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Reference to a document in contract should show intention to incorporate arbitration clause: Supreme Court reiterates"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> In appeals challenging Delhi High Court’s orders allowing application under Section 11(6)<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (‘Arbitration Act’) appointing sole arbitrator, the Division Bench of B.R. Gavai*<\/span> and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. reiterated that reference to a specific document in the contract should clearly show the intention of the parties to contract for incorporating arbitration clause in the contract.<\/p>\n

Factual Background<\/p>\n

The appellant — NBCC, a Public Limited Company and Government of India undertaking engaged in construction of power plants and other infrastructure projects on EPC and\/or PMC basis, as against the respondent, a Private Limited Company, engaged in the construction and infrastructure sector.<\/p>\n

NBCC issued an invitation for tender on 3-11-2006 for “Construction of Weir containing General Conditions of Contract, Special Conditions of Contract, Bill of Quantity, etc. To which, respondent submitted its Techno Commercial Bid on 16-11-2006, received a Letter of Intent on 4-12-2006 for contract for Construction of the Weir for a total value of Rs 19,08,46,612. As certain disputes arose between the parties, arbitration was invoked by the respondent, but NBCC did not respond to the notice. The respondent therefore filed an application before the High Court under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and proposed appointment of a sole arbitrator, and the same got challenged in the instant matter. The Supreme Court, through order dated 23-07-2021 stayed the further arbitration proceedings.<\/p>\n

Court’s Analysis<\/p>\n

The Court perused Section 7(5)<\/a> of Arbitration Act<\/a> and explained that the issue was no more res integra since the same was considered in M.R. Engineers & Contractors (P) Ltd. v. Som Datt Builders Ltd.<\/span>, (2009) 7 SCC 696<\/a> and the Court held the following:<\/p>\n