Arbitration jurisdiction requires party consent; mandamus cannot compel reference of contractual disputes outside the arbitration agreement.

Relief under Article 226 is unavailable to compel a public sector contracting party to refer additional contractual disputes to arbitration when those disputes fall outside the existing arbitration agreement. Arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 depends on party consent, and an arbitral tribunal derives jurisdiction only from that agreement or a lawful reference under the Act. In a pure contractual dispute, the duty to refer further claims to arbitration is not a public duty merely because one party is a State instrumentality, so mandamus cannot be used to force such reference or to direct the tribunal to decide those matters.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be issued to compel a public sector contracting party to refer disputes to arbitration when those disputes were not covered by the existing arbitration agreement, and whether the arbitral tribunal could be directed to adjudicate such disputes.

Analysis: Arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is founded on an agreement between the parties to submit existing or future disputes to arbitration. The jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal is derived only from that agreement or from a lawful reference under the Act. Where the parties have not agreed to refer particular disputes, and one party does not consent to arbitration, the tribunal cannot assume jurisdiction over those matters. A writ of mandamus issues only to enforce a public duty, and in a contractual dispute the duty to refer additional disputes to arbitration is not a public duty merely because one contracting party is a State instrumentality. The contractual nature of the dispute and the absence of an arbitration agreement covering the additional claims therefore barred judicial compulsion to make such a reference.

Conclusion: The writ court could not compel reference of the additional disputes to arbitration, and the request to direct the arbitral tribunal to decide them was untenable. The issue was decided against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: Relief under Article 226 was unavailable in a pure contractual dispute where the additional claims were outside the agreed arbitration clause, so the petition failed.

Ratio Decidendi: An arbitral tribunal cannot exercise jurisdiction over disputes not covered by an arbitration agreement, and a writ of mandamus cannot be used to compel arbitration in a contractual matter absent a corresponding public duty or mutual consent.

---