Arbitration clause survives later agreements when not expressly extinguished, and civil suit cannot block arbitral proceedings.

A principal arbitration agreement remains enforceable where later agreements do not clearly extinguish it, and a jurisdiction clause in a supplementary agreement does not by itself abrogate the earlier arbitration clause. The later contracts were treated as supplementary arrangements, while the principal agreement's terms continued to bind the parties; the arbitration clause therefore remained valid and operative. Once that clause was upheld, a civil suit seeking a declaration that the arbitration agreement was void and an injunction restraining the arbitral proceedings was not maintainable, because a party cannot bypass the agreed arbitral forum to obstruct reference to arbitration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the arbitration clause in the principal agreement dated 12 January 2002 survived the subsequent agreements dated 8 March 2002 and 30 July 2004, notwithstanding the Calcutta courts jurisdiction clause in the later agreement. (ii) Whether the suit seeking declaration that the arbitration agreement was void and injunction against the arbitral proceedings was maintainable.

Issue (i): Whether the arbitration clause in the principal agreement dated 12 January 2002 survived the subsequent agreements dated 8 March 2002 and 30 July 2004, notwithstanding the Calcutta courts jurisdiction clause in the later agreement.

Analysis: The later agreements did not state that the principal agreement stood extinguished. The correspondence and contractual recitals treated the 12 January 2002 agreement as the principal agreement and the later documents as supplementary arrangements. The clause conferring jurisdiction on courts at Calcutta was confined to the 8 March 2002 agreement and did not abrogate the arbitration clause in the principal agreement. The agreement dated 30 July 2004 expressly preserved the binding force of the principal agreement and its terms. The arbitration agreement therefore remained valid and operative. Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 also supported minimal judicial intervention in matters governed by arbitration.

Conclusion: The arbitration clause continued to subsist and could be invoked by the appellant. The finding was in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit seeking declaration that the arbitration agreement was void and injunction against the arbitral proceedings was maintainable.

Analysis: Once the arbitration clause was held to be valid and operative, the suit challenging that clause and seeking to restrain the arbitral proceedings could not survive. The court held that the party could not bypass the agreed arbitral forum by resorting to civil proceedings to obstruct arbitration. The challenge to maintainability also failed in view of the validity of the arbitration agreement and the applicability of the statutory scheme governing reference to arbitration.

Conclusion: The suit was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed. The finding was in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The dispute was directed to proceed to arbitration under clause 15 of the principal agreement, and the injunction-based challenge to the arbitral process was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A principal arbitration agreement remains enforceable where subsequent agreements do not clearly extinguish it, and a civil suit cannot be used to defeat an operative arbitration clause by seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the arbitral process.

---