{"id":335098,"date":"2024-11-14T11:00:35","date_gmt":"2024-11-14T05:30:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=335098"},"modified":"2024-11-20T11:09:33","modified_gmt":"2024-11-20T05:39:33","slug":"supreme-court-refers-dispute-to-diac-sole-arbitrator","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/14\/supreme-court-refers-dispute-to-diac-sole-arbitrator\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018Existence of arbitration agreement in license agreement and share subscription agreement not in dispute\u2019, Supreme Court refers matter to DIAC for appointment of sole arbitrator"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> In an arbitration petition, the division bench of Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, CJI and Manoj Misra*<\/span>, J. said that since at the stage of consideration of a prayer under Section 11(6)<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (‘Act, 1996’) , the Court has to confine itself to the examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement, it would not be appropriate for it to delve deep into the issue as it could well be considered by the arbitrator on the basis of evidence led by the parties. More so, when existence of arbitration agreement in the license agreement and share subscription agreement is not in dispute. Therefore, the Court referred the matter to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre for the appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties.<\/p>\n

Background:<\/h3>\n

A company duly incorporated under the laws of the United States of America invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under sub-sections (6) and (12) of Section 11 of the Act, 1996<\/a> for appointment of a sole arbitrator in terms of arbitration clause stipulated in the agreements dated 27-12-2009 and 11-02-2010 to adjudicate upon the disputes between the petitioner and the respondents.<\/p>\n

The company’s case inter alia is that it purchased the assets of Cryobank International, Inc on 8-06-2010 at a public auction in pursuance of a decree dated 5-05-2010 passed by the Circuit Court of Florida, USA. Following which, a certificate of title was issued in its favor certifying purchase of all assets, tangible and intangible, of Cryobank USA by it. On the basis thereof, the petitioner company claims to have stepped into the shoes of Cryobank USA. According to the petitioner company, the dispute between them and the respondents stems from Exclusive and Perpetual License Agreement and Share Subscription and Shareholders Agreement. Under both the arbitration agreements the disputes are referable to a sole arbitrator subject to the jurisdiction of courts at Delhi.<\/p>\n

It is the case of the petitioner company that under the license agreement, the respondents were entitled to use Cryobank’s intellectual property rights in lieu of consideration which included issue of shares in the respondent company. It is stated that the company stepped into the shoes of Cryobank USA, and this fact was acknowledged by the respondent company in various correspondences. However, since the company’s demand was not met, arbitration clause had to be invoked vide notice dated 29-09-2017.<\/p>\n

In response to the notice of these proceedings, the respondents’ case inter alia is that the license agreement was non-assignable, and the respondents have not accepted the company as the assignee. There is, therefore, no privity of contract. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.<\/p>\n

Analysis and Decision:<\/h3>\n

The Court said that at the stage of considering an application for appointment of an arbitrator the Court is required to examine whether there exists an arbitration agreement between the parties. However, the existence of an arbitration agreement is not an issue. The issue is that it is not between the petitioner company and the respondent company but between Cryobank USA and the respondents. According to the respondents the petitioner company has only bought assets of Cryobank USA but, in absence of respondents’ consent, has not stepped into the shoes of Cryobank USA.<\/p>\n

The Court noted that the petitioner company has referred to several documents\/correspondences to canvass that the respondent has accepted as having stepped into the shoes of Cryobank USA. The petitioner company has also annexed a certificate to indicate that rights under all existing contracts including intellectual property rights of Cryobank USA were purchased by the petitioner company in auction sale.<\/p>\n

The Court took note of Khardah Company Ltd. v. Raymon & Co (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1810, wherein it was held that an assignment of a contract might result by transfer either of the rights or of the obligations thereunder. But there is a well-recognized distinction between these two classes of assignments. As a rule, obligations under a contract cannot be assigned except with the consent of the promise, and when such consent is given, it is really a novation resulting in substitution of liabilities. On the other hand, the rights under a contract are assignable unless the contract is personal in its nature, or the rights are incapable of assignment either under the law or under an agreement between the parties.<\/p>\n

The Court mentioned that since at the stage of consideration of a prayer under Section 11(6)<\/a> of the 1996 Act<\/a> the Court has to confine itself to the examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement (vide sub-section (6-A) of Section 11), it would not be appropriate for it to delve deep into the issue as it could well be considered by the arbitrator on the basis of evidence led by the parties. More so, when existence of arbitration agreement in the license agreement and share subscription agreement is not in dispute.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the Court referred the matter to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre for the appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

CASE DETAILS<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n<\/colgroup>\n\n\n
\n

Citation:<\/span>
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3215<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Appellants :<\/span>
Lifeforce Cryobank Sciences Inc<\/p>\n

Respondents :<\/span>
Cryoviva Biotech Pvt. Ltd.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

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

For Petitioner(s):<\/span> <\/p>\n

For Respondent(s):<\/span> <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

CORAM :<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n

\"CJI
Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\"Manoj
Manoj Misra, J.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\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":"

“We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of either party including regarding the arbitrability of the dispute. All contentions and pleas are kept open for the parties to raise before the arbitral tribunal.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67512,"featured_media":335104,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[26333,24904,10111,10131,75226,65137,37235,75227,46627,37956,31135,5363],"class_list":["post-335098","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-adr","tag-appointment-of-arbitrator","tag-arbitration-agreement","tag-arbitration-and-conciliation-act","tag-arbitration-referral","tag-diac","tag-dispute-resolution","tag-india-arbitration","tag-license-agreement","tag-share-subscription-agreement","tag-sole-arbitrator","tag-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court refers dispute to DIAC for sole arbitrator appointment, confirms existence of arbitration agreement | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Supreme Court referred dispute to DIAC for the appointment of a sole arbitrator, confirming that existence of arbitration agreements in license and share subscription agreements is undisputed.\" \/>\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\/11\/14\/supreme-court-refers-dispute-to-diac-sole-arbitrator\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"\u2018Existence of arbitration agreement in license agreement and share subscription agreement not in dispute\u2019, Supreme Court refers matter to DIAC for appointment of sole arbitrator\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court referred dispute to DIAC for the appointment of a sole arbitrator, confirming that existence of arbitration agreements in license and share subscription agreements is undisputed.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/14\/supreme-court-refers-dispute-to-diac-sole-arbitrator\/\" \/>\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=\"2024-11-14T05:30:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-11-20T05:39:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/Media-12.jpeg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\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=\"\u2018Existence of arbitration agreement in license agreement and share subscription agreement not in dispute\u2019, Supreme Court refers matter to DIAC for appointment of sole arbitrator\" \/>\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\/11\/14\/supreme-court-refers-dispute-to-diac-sole-arbitrator\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/14\/supreme-court-refers-dispute-to-diac-sole-arbitrator\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court refers dispute to DIAC for sole arbitrator appointment, confirms existence of arbitration agreement | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/14\/supreme-court-refers-dispute-to-diac-sole-arbitrator\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/14\/supreme-court-refers-dispute-to-diac-sole-arbitrator\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/Media-_12_.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-11-14T05:30:35+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-11-20T05:39:33+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\"},\"description\":\"Supreme Court referred dispute to DIAC for the appointment of a sole arbitrator, confirming that existence of arbitration agreements in license and share subscription agreements is undisputed.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/14\/supreme-court-refers-dispute-to-diac-sole-arbitrator\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/14\/supreme-court-refers-dispute-to-diac-sole-arbitrator\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/14\/supreme-court-refers-dispute-to-diac-sole-arbitrator\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/Media-_12_.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/Media-_12_.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Appointment of Arbitrator\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/14\/supreme-court-refers-dispute-to-diac-sole-arbitrator\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"\u2018Existence of arbitration agreement in license agreement and share subscription agreement not in dispute\u2019, Supreme Court refers matter to DIAC for appointment of sole arbitrator\"}]},{\"@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":"Supreme Court refers dispute to DIAC for sole arbitrator appointment, confirms existence of arbitration agreement | SCC Times","description":"Supreme Court referred dispute to DIAC for the appointment of a sole arbitrator, confirming that existence of arbitration agreements in license and share subscription agreements is undisputed.","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\/11\/14\/supreme-court-refers-dispute-to-diac-sole-arbitrator\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"\u2018Existence of arbitration agreement in license agreement and share subscription agreement not in dispute\u2019, Supreme Court refers matter to DIAC for appointment of sole arbitrator","og_description":"Supreme Court referred dispute to DIAC for the appointment of a sole arbitrator, confirming that existence of arbitration agreements in license and share subscription agreements is undisputed.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/14\/supreme-court-refers-dispute-to-diac-sole-arbitrator\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-11-14T05:30:35+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-11-20T05:39:33+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/Media-12.jpeg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Apoorva","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"\u2018Existence of arbitration agreement in license agreement and share subscription agreement not in dispute\u2019, Supreme Court refers matter to DIAC for appointment of sole arbitrator","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\/11\/14\/supreme-court-refers-dispute-to-diac-sole-arbitrator\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/14\/supreme-court-refers-dispute-to-diac-sole-arbitrator\/","name":"Supreme Court refers dispute to DIAC for sole arbitrator appointment, confirms existence of arbitration agreement | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/14\/supreme-court-refers-dispute-to-diac-sole-arbitrator\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/14\/supreme-court-refers-dispute-to-diac-sole-arbitrator\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/Media-_12_.webp","datePublished":"2024-11-14T05:30:35+00:00","dateModified":"2024-11-20T05:39:33+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9"},"description":"Supreme Court referred dispute to DIAC for the appointment of a sole arbitrator, confirming that existence of arbitration agreements in license and share subscription agreements is undisputed.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/14\/supreme-court-refers-dispute-to-diac-sole-arbitrator\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/14\/supreme-court-refers-dispute-to-diac-sole-arbitrator\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/14\/supreme-court-refers-dispute-to-diac-sole-arbitrator\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/Media-_12_.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/Media-_12_.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Appointment of Arbitrator"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/14\/supreme-court-refers-dispute-to-diac-sole-arbitrator\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"\u2018Existence of arbitration agreement in license agreement and share subscription agreement not in dispute\u2019, Supreme Court refers matter to DIAC for appointment of sole arbitrator"}]},{"@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\/11\/Media-_12_.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":272263,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/26\/calcutta-high-court-conduct-of-parties-not-a-substitute-for-an-arbitration-agreement\/","url_meta":{"origin":335098,"position":0},"title":"Calcutta High Court | Conduct of Parties – not a substitute for an arbitration agreement","author":"Editor","date":"August 26, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Calcutta High Court: While deciding a review petition, Debangsu Basak, J. held that the court while exercising powers under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot substitute arbitration agreement with conduct of parties. Facts of the Case The respondent filed an application under Section 11\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":253078,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/21\/arbitration-agreement-2\/","url_meta":{"origin":335098,"position":1},"title":"Del HC | Whether once a bench of SC has doubted correctness of an earlier bench of co-equal strength, and referred the issue to a larger bench, Courts lower in hierarchy should continue to follow earlier decision \u2013 Is it debatable?","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 21, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: C. Hari Shankar, J. observed that, The question of whether, once a bench of the Supreme Court has doubted the correctness of an earlier bench of co-equal strength, and referred the issue to a larger bench, Courts lower in hierarchy should continue to follow the earlier decision,\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":237643,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/17\/kar-hc-whether-an-insufficiently-stamped-sale-agreement-containing-arbitration-clause-for-appointment-of-sole-arbitrator-enforceable-under-s-116-of-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-hc-reit\/","url_meta":{"origin":335098,"position":2},"title":"Kar HC | Whether an insufficiently stamped sale agreement, containing arbitration clause for appointment of sole arbitrator enforceable under S.11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; HC reiterates settled legal position on said premise","author":"Editor","date":"October 17, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Karnataka High Court: S.R. Krishna Kumar, J., allowing the present petition for the appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, held that, the decision made is restricted to the peculiar facts of the instant case and shall not be treated as 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":292321,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/16\/calcutta-high-court-appointed-sole-arbitrator-despite-forgrry-fraud-allegation-scc-blog-legal-news-research\/","url_meta":{"origin":335098,"position":3},"title":"Allegation of Forgery\/Fraud inter partes does not render dispute non-arbitrable; Calcutta High Court appoints sole arbitrator","author":"Ritu","date":"May 16, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court opined that the mere potential or presence of criminal proceedings deriving from the same circumstances would not exclude the issue from being resolved through arbitration.","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":254584,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/23\/arbitration-and-conciliation-act-3\/","url_meta":{"origin":335098,"position":4},"title":"Chairman of party who entered into arbitration, can he be categorised as eligible under Arbitration and Conciliation Act? SC highlights impartiality of arbitrators as a key element while pronouncing this ruling","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 23, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: Expressing on the aspect of independence and impartiality of the arbitrators, Division Bench of M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., held that, Though the word 'Chairman' is not mentioned explicitly in Seventh Schedule, at the same time, it would fall under clause 1, clause 2, clause 5, and\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\/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":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":335098,"position":5},"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":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/335098","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=335098"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/335098\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/335104"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=335098"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=335098"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=335098"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}