{"id":318882,"date":"2024-03-30T16:00:51","date_gmt":"2024-03-30T10:30:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=318882"},"modified":"2024-03-30T15:45:33","modified_gmt":"2024-03-30T10:15:33","slug":"whether-arbitration-clause-from-primary-contract-gets-incorporated-into-subsequent-letter-of-intent-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/30\/whether-arbitration-clause-from-primary-contract-gets-incorporated-into-subsequent-letter-of-intent-supreme-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Whether an arbitration clause from a primary contract gets incorporated into a subsequent Letter of Intent? Supreme Court answers"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> In a civil appeal filed by NBCC (India) Limited challenging the orders passed by the Delhi High Court, wherein the Court allowed the application under Section 11(6)<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996<\/a> (‘the Arbitration Act’) and appointed the Sole Arbitrator, the division bench of BR Gavai*<\/span> and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. while setting aside the impugned orders, 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.<\/p>\n

Further, it said that the present case is not a case of ‘incorporation’ but a case of ‘reference.’ As such, a general reference would not include the arbitration clause. Clause 7.0 of the LOI., also part of the agreement, makes it clear that the redress of the dispute between the NBCC and Zillion Infra must be only through civil courts having jurisdiction of Delhi alone.<\/p>\n

Background:<\/p>\n

NBCC is a Public Limited Company and Government of India undertaking, engaged in construction of power plants and other infrastructure projects. The respondent Zillion Infra projects Pvt. Ltd. (‘Zillion Infra’) is a Private Limited Company, engaged in the construction and infrastructure sector. NBCC issued an invitation for tender for “Construction of Weir with Allied Structures across river Damodar (‘Construction of the Weir’), containing inter-alia, the General Conditions of Contract, Special Conditions of Contract, Bill of Quantity, etc. (‘Tender Documents’). Thereafter, Zillion Infra submitted its Techno Commercial Bid. On fulfilment of the tender criteria, vide Letter of Intent, NBCC awarded the contract for Construction of the Weir to Zillion Infra. With the passage of time, certain disputes arose between the parties, thus, Zillion Infra issued a notice in terms of Clause 3.34 of Section III Volume II of the Tender Documents (GCC), thereby invoking arbitration and further seeking consent of NBCC for the appointment of a former Judge of a High Court, as Sole Arbitrator. NBCC did not respond to the notice invoking arbitration, so Zillion Infra filed an application at the High Court under Section 11(6)<\/a> of the Arbitration Act<\/a>. The High Court allowed the Arbitration Petition and proposed the appointment of a former Judge of the High Court, as the Sole Arbitrator, to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. Aggrieved by the orders of the High Court, the appellant filed the present appeal.<\/p>\n

Analysis:<\/p>\n

After taking note of Section 7(5)<\/a> of the Arbitration Act<\/a>, and the decision in M.R. Engineers & Contractors (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. Som Datt Builders Ltd.<\/span>, (2009) 7 SCC 696<\/a>, the Court noted that when the parties enter into a contract, making a general reference to another contract, such general reference would not have the effect of incorporating the arbitration clause from the referred document into the contract between the parties. The arbitration clause from another contract can be incorporated into the contract (where such reference is made), only by a specific reference to the arbitration clause. Further, where a contract between the parties provides that the execution or performance of that contract shall be in terms of another contract (which contains the terms and conditions relating to performance and a provision for settlement of disputes by arbitration), then, the terms of the referred contract in regard to execution\/performance alone will apply, and not the arbitration agreement in the referred contract, unless there is special reference to the arbitration clause also.<\/p>\n

After further perusing Section 7(5)<\/a> of the Arbitration Act<\/a>, the Court said that it provides for a conscious acceptance of the arbitration clause from another document, by the parties, as a part of their contract, before such arbitration clause could be read as a part of the contract between the parties. Thus, a reference to the document in the contract should be such that shows the intention to incorporate the arbitration clause contained in the document into the contract.<\/p>\n

Further, the Court referred to Inox Wind Ltd.<\/span> v. Thermocables Ltd.<\/span>, (2018) 2 SCC 519<\/a>, wherein it was held that hat though general reference to an earlier contract is not sufficient for incorporation of an arbitration clause in the later contract, a general reference to a standard form would be enough for incorporation of the arbitration clause. The Court said that this was a case of a single-contract and not two-contract case and, therefore, it was held that the arbitration clause as mentioned in the terms and conditions would be applicable.<\/p>\n

The Court noted that the present case is a ‘two-contract’ case and not a ‘single contract’ case. After referring to Clause 3.34 of the Additional Terms & Conditions of Contract, the Court said that Clause 3.34 provides for a reference of the dispute to the sole arbitration of the Secretary, CEO of Damodar Valley Corporation, or to a person appointed by him for that purpose.<\/p>\n

After referring to Clauses 1.0, 2.0, 7.0 and 10.0 of the Letter of Intent (‘LOI’), the Court said that the intention between the parties is very clear. Clause 7.0 of the LOI forms part of the agreement and provides that the redressal of the dispute between the NBCC and Zillion Infra shall only be through civil courts having the jurisdiction of Delhi alone.<\/p>\n

The Court noted that Clause 7.0 of the LOI specifically uses the word “only” before the words “be through civil courts having jurisdiction of Delhi alone”.<\/p>\n

The 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.<\/p>\n

Further, the Bench viewed that the present case is not a case of ‘incorporation’ but a case of ‘reference’. As such, a general reference would not include the arbitration clause. Clause 7.0 of the LOI., also part of the agreement, makes it clear that the redress of the dispute between the NBCC and Zillion Infra must be only through civil courts having jurisdiction of Delhi alone.<\/p>\n

Thus, the Court held that the Delhi High Court has erred in allowing the application of Zillion Infra.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

CASE DETAILS<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n<\/colgroup>\n\n\n
Citation:<\/b><\/span>
2024 SCC OnLine SC 323<\/a><\/span><\/p>\nAppellants :<\/b><\/span>
NBCC (India) Ltd.<\/p>\nRespondents :<\/b><\/span>
Zillion Infraprojects (P) Ltd.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n		\n

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

For Petitioner(s):<\/b><\/span>
Kiran Kumar Patra, AOR, Debarshi Bhadra, Adv., Sunil Mund, Adv.<\/p>\n

For Respondent(s):<\/b><\/span>
Sumit Kumar, AOR<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

CORAM :<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n

\"Sandeep
Sandeep Mehta, J.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\"B.R.
B.R. Gavai, J.<\/b><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Buy Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996   HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"arbitration<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67512,"featured_media":318885,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[23324,33731,37563,66988,31135,5363,66989],"class_list":["post-318882","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-arbitration-clause","tag-letter-of-intent","tag-nbcc","tag-primary-contract","tag-sole-arbitrator","tag-supreme-court","tag-zillion-infra"],"yoast_head":"\nWhether an arbitration clause from a primary contract gets incorporated into a subsequent Letter of Intent? Supreme Court answers | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Supreme Court reiterated that arbitration clause would not ipso facto be applicable to second contract unless there is specific reference\" \/>\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\/2024\/03\/30\/whether-arbitration-clause-from-primary-contract-gets-incorporated-into-subsequent-letter-of-intent-supreme-court\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Whether an arbitration clause from a primary contract gets incorporated into a subsequent Letter of Intent? Supreme Court answers\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court reiterated that arbitration clause would not ipso facto be applicable to second contract unless there is specific reference\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/30\/whether-arbitration-clause-from-primary-contract-gets-incorporated-into-subsequent-letter-of-intent-supreme-court\/\" \/>\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=\"2024-03-30T10:30:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/arbitration-clause.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"888\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"592\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Apoorva\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Whether an arbitration clause from a primary contract gets incorporated into a subsequent Letter of Intent? Supreme Court answers\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Apoorva\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 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\/2024\/03\/30\/whether-arbitration-clause-from-primary-contract-gets-incorporated-into-subsequent-letter-of-intent-supreme-court\/\",\"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\/\",\"name\":\"Whether an arbitration clause from a primary contract gets incorporated into a subsequent Letter of Intent? Supreme Court answers | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/30\/whether-arbitration-clause-from-primary-contract-gets-incorporated-into-subsequent-letter-of-intent-supreme-court\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/30\/whether-arbitration-clause-from-primary-contract-gets-incorporated-into-subsequent-letter-of-intent-supreme-court\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/arbitration-clause.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-03-30T10:30:51+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\"},\"description\":\"Supreme Court reiterated that arbitration clause would not ipso facto be applicable to second contract unless there is specific reference\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/30\/whether-arbitration-clause-from-primary-contract-gets-incorporated-into-subsequent-letter-of-intent-supreme-court\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/30\/whether-arbitration-clause-from-primary-contract-gets-incorporated-into-subsequent-letter-of-intent-supreme-court\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/30\/whether-arbitration-clause-from-primary-contract-gets-incorporated-into-subsequent-letter-of-intent-supreme-court\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/arbitration-clause.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/arbitration-clause.webp\",\"width\":888,\"height\":592,\"caption\":\"arbitration clause\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/30\/whether-arbitration-clause-from-primary-contract-gets-incorporated-into-subsequent-letter-of-intent-supreme-court\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Whether an arbitration clause from a primary contract gets incorporated into a subsequent Letter of Intent? Supreme Court answers\"}]},{\"@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\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\",\"name\":\"Apoorva\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Apoorva\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Whether an arbitration clause from a primary contract gets incorporated into a subsequent Letter of Intent? Supreme Court answers | SCC Times","description":"Supreme Court reiterated that arbitration clause would not ipso facto be applicable to second contract unless there is specific reference","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\/2024\/03\/30\/whether-arbitration-clause-from-primary-contract-gets-incorporated-into-subsequent-letter-of-intent-supreme-court\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Whether an arbitration clause from a primary contract gets incorporated into a subsequent Letter of Intent? Supreme Court answers","og_description":"Supreme Court reiterated that arbitration clause would not ipso facto be applicable to second contract unless there is specific reference","og_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\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-03-30T10:30:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":888,"height":592,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/arbitration-clause.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Apoorva","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Whether an arbitration clause from a primary contract gets incorporated into a subsequent Letter of Intent? Supreme Court answers","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Apoorva","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"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":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/30\/whether-arbitration-clause-from-primary-contract-gets-incorporated-into-subsequent-letter-of-intent-supreme-court\/","name":"Whether an arbitration clause from a primary contract gets incorporated into a subsequent Letter of Intent? Supreme Court answers | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/30\/whether-arbitration-clause-from-primary-contract-gets-incorporated-into-subsequent-letter-of-intent-supreme-court\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/30\/whether-arbitration-clause-from-primary-contract-gets-incorporated-into-subsequent-letter-of-intent-supreme-court\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/arbitration-clause.webp","datePublished":"2024-03-30T10:30:51+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9"},"description":"Supreme Court reiterated that arbitration clause would not ipso facto be applicable to second contract unless there is specific reference","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/30\/whether-arbitration-clause-from-primary-contract-gets-incorporated-into-subsequent-letter-of-intent-supreme-court\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/30\/whether-arbitration-clause-from-primary-contract-gets-incorporated-into-subsequent-letter-of-intent-supreme-court\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/30\/whether-arbitration-clause-from-primary-contract-gets-incorporated-into-subsequent-letter-of-intent-supreme-court\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/arbitration-clause.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/arbitration-clause.webp","width":888,"height":592,"caption":"arbitration clause"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/30\/whether-arbitration-clause-from-primary-contract-gets-incorporated-into-subsequent-letter-of-intent-supreme-court\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Whether an arbitration clause from a primary contract gets incorporated into a subsequent Letter of Intent? Supreme Court answers"}]},{"@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\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9","name":"Apoorva","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Apoorva"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/arbitration-clause.webp","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":318882,"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":242236,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/14\/whether-the-arbitral-process-could-be-interfered-under-article-226-227-of-the-constitution-and-under-what-circumstance-supreme-court-explains\/","url_meta":{"origin":318882,"position":1},"title":"Whether the arbitral process could be interfered under Article 226\/227 of the Constitution, and under what circumstance? Supreme Court explains","author":"Editor","date":"January 14, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cIf the Courts are allowed to interfere with the arbitral process beyond the ambit of the enactment, then the efficiency of the process will be diminished.\u201d","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\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":318200,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/23\/reference-to-document-in-contract-show-intention-incorporate-arbitration-clause-supreme-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":318882,"position":2},"title":"Reference to a document in contract should show intention to incorporate arbitration clause: Supreme Court reiterates","author":"Ridhi","date":"March 23, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court concluded that the instant matter was not one of \u2018incorporation\u2019 but a case of \u2018reference\u2019 and clarified that a general reference would not have the effect of incorporating arbitration clause.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"arbitration clause in contract","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/arbitration-clause-in-contract.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-in-contract.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/arbitration-clause-in-contract.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/arbitration-clause-in-contract.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":318882,"position":3},"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":[]},{"id":245454,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/12\/arbitration-2\/","url_meta":{"origin":318882,"position":4},"title":"Del HC | Whether disability of an appointing authority to appoint an arbitrator frustrate the arbitration agreement. HC unravels in light of Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 12, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: Vibhu Bakhru, J., while addressing the matter in respect to the invocation of an arbitration clause expressed that: \u201c\u2026the legislative policy is to encourage arbitration, thus, any interpretation that would nullify an arbitration clause must be avoided.\u201d What led to the filing of the present petition? Petitioner\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":254602,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/23\/can-an-officer-of-the-department-appointed-as-sole-arbitrator-continue-the-arbitration-proceedings-after-his-retirement-sc-answers\/","url_meta":{"origin":318882,"position":5},"title":"Can an officer of the department, appointed as sole arbitrator, continue the arbitration proceedings after his retirement?\u00a0SC answers","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"September 23, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The bench of MR Shah* and AS Bopanna, JJ has held that once an officer of the department is appointed as an Arbitrator considering the arbitration clause, his mandate to continue the arbitration proceedings shall come to an end on his retirement if the Arbitration clause doesn\u2019t specifically\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\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/318882","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\/67512"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=318882"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/318882\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/318885"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=318882"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=318882"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=318882"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}