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 the Court should decline appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the ground that the underlying agreement was alleged to be vitiated by fraud, forgery and cheating, and whether such jurisdictional objections could be decided at the stage of appointment.
Analysis: The objection rested on the plea that the agreement and the authority claimed under it were void because of alleged fraud and forgery, and therefore no reference to arbitration could be made. The Court held that questions touching the jurisdiction of the arbitrator and the effect of such objections are for the arbitral tribunal to decide under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Since the challenge raised by the objecting party could be agitated before the arbitrator, it did not constitute a ground to refuse appointment under Section 11.
Conclusion: The jurisdictional and fraud-based objections were rejected, and appointment of the sole arbitrator was made in favour of the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of Section 11 proceedings, objections relating to the arbitrator's jurisdiction and the validity of the underlying agreement on grounds such as fraud or forgery are to be left to the arbitral tribunal under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.