Arbitration agreement disputes must go to the tribunal; civil suits to block invocation are barred by Section 5.

A suit seeking to restrain invocation of arbitration was held barred because objections to compliance with the staged dispute-resolution procedure in the arbitration clause belonged to the arbitration process itself. The Court applied the competence-competence principle and Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and held that such issues are for the arbitral tribunal, not the civil court. It also noted that the plaintiff had effective remedies before the tribunal and under the Act. On that basis, the plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as barred by law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the suit, which sought to restrain invocation of arbitration, was barred by Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and by the statutory scheme leaving such questions to the arbitral tribunal.

Analysis: The relief claimed in the suit was directed against commencement of arbitration under the contractual dispute-resolution mechanism. The Court held that objections based on alleged non-compliance with the staged dispute-resolution procedure in the arbitration clause, including the contention that prior steps had been bypassed, were matters arising from the arbitration agreement and the invocation process. Such questions fall within the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction under the competence-competence principle and are not to be examined by the civil court in view of the express restriction on judicial intervention contained in Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court further noted that the plaintiff had efficacious remedies before the arbitral tribunal and under the Act, and that a suit seeking to obstruct arbitration was not maintainable.

Conclusion: The plaint was barred by law and was liable to be rejected; the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) was allowed.

---