Arbitration agreement and clause scope left to arbitrator where tender acceptance raised jurisdictional objections

Under the pre-S.B.P. & Co. regime, the existence of an arbitration agreement and whether the claim fell within the arbitration clause were not to be finally determined in a Section 11 proceeding when the tender acceptance, acceptance letter, and clause 25A raised a jurisdictional dispute. Those objections were left to the arbitrator, who could decide them under Section 16. The challenge to appointment of the arbitrator was rejected, and the dispute was remitted to the arbitral tribunal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appointment of an arbitrator could be interfered with on the ground that no concluded contract containing the detailed terms was signed and that the dispute did not fall within the arbitration clause.

Analysis: The acceptance of the tender, the terms of the acceptance letter, and the arbitration clause in the tender conditions showed a dispute as to whether an arbitration agreement existed and whether the claim was covered by Clause 25A. Since the matter arose under the pre-S.B.P. & Co. regime, the Court held that these questions should not be finally decided in the Section 11 proceeding. It was appropriate to leave the questions of existence of an arbitration agreement and the scope of the arbitration clause to the arbitrator, who could examine jurisdictional objections under Section 16 of the Act.

Conclusion: The challenge to the appointment of the arbitrator was rejected, and the dispute was left to be decided by the arbitral tribunal.

---