Severability of arbitration clause upheld where contract validity and signatory authority were disputed, and arbitration proceeded.

A society named in the joint development agreement and connected power of attorney was treated as the contracting party, so its application under section 11 for appointment of an arbitrator was maintainable. Allegations that the agreement contained unfair terms or that the signatory lacked authority went to the validity of the principal contract, not to the existence of the arbitration clause, which remained separable and enforceable. The Court upheld appointment of the arbitrator and left issues on the contract's validity to arbitration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent society was a party to the joint development agreement and could maintain an application for appointment of an arbitrator under section 11. (ii) Whether allegations concerning the validity of the joint development agreement and the authority of its signatory excluded arbitration.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent society was a party to the joint development agreement and could maintain an application for appointment of an arbitrator under section 11.

Analysis: The agreement described the first party as "Father A. John Bosco, President, Gaunellian Society" and was signed on behalf of the society. The power of attorney was also executed by the society. On the face of the documents, the society, not Father A. John Bosco in his personal capacity, was the contracting party.

Conclusion: The respondent society was a party to the agreement and the application under section 11 was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether allegations concerning the validity of the joint development agreement and the authority of its signatory excluded arbitration.

Analysis: Allegations that the contract contained unfair terms or that the president lacked authority went to the validity and binding nature of the underlying agreement, but not to the existence or operation of the arbitration clause. The arbitration agreement was independent and could be acted upon, leaving the arbitrator to examine the validity of the principal contract.

Conclusion: The allegations did not exclude arbitration or justify of appointment of an arbitrator.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the appointment of the arbitrator failed, and the order appointing the arbitrator was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: An arbitration clause is separable and enforceable even when the validity of the underlying contract or the authority of its signatory is disputed, provided the parties to the arbitration agreement are identifiable from the contract and connected documents.

---