Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether clause 16 of the partnership deed constituted an arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, so as to permit appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act.
Analysis: An arbitration agreement must disclose a clear intention to submit disputes to a private tribunal and an obligation to be bound by its decision. Mere use of the word "arbitration" is insufficient if the clause contemplates a further mutual decision before reference can be made. Clause 16 stated that disputes shall be referred for arbitration only if the parties so determine, which meant that fresh consent was required before arbitration could commence. The essential element of consensus ad idem to refer disputes to arbitration was therefore absent. In the absence of a valid arbitration agreement, the power under Section 11 could not be invoked. The reference to Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 did not assist the first respondent because that provision could not override the requirement of mutual consent for arbitration.
Conclusion: Clause 16 was not an arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the appointment of the arbitrator under Section 11 could not be sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: A clause is an arbitration agreement only when it evinces a binding, present intention to refer disputes to arbitration without requiring further consent; a provision making arbitration contingent on a later mutual determination is not sufficient to found jurisdiction under Section 11.