Arbitrability under Section 11: Delhi HC read the agreement as preserving arbitration despite limitation and specific performance objections.

The Delhi HC noted that, in a Section 11 petition, the court's role is limited to verifying the existence of a written arbitration agreement and a prima facie arbitrable dispute. Reading clauses 36 and 37 together, it treated the addendum as preserving both specific enforcement rights in appropriate cases and a separate arbitration mechanism for disputes arising from the agreement. Objections based on limitation, maintainability, and the specific performance clause did not exclude arbitration at the appointment stage, and the issue of whether a third party was necessary was left to the tribunal. Two arbitrators were appointed to constitute the tribunal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the disputes arising from the addendum agreement were arbitrable and whether an arbitrator was liable to be appointed despite the objection that the claim fell within the specific performance clause and was time barred.

Analysis: The jurisdiction under Section 11 is confined to examining whether there is a written arbitration agreement and whether a prima facie arbitrable dispute exists. Clauses 36 and 37 were read together to hold that the agreement preserved both a right to seek specific enforcement in appropriate cases and a separate mechanism for arbitration for disputes touching the terms of the agreement. The Court found that the dispute could not be excluded from arbitration merely because limitation and maintainability objections were raised, particularly when both sides had proposed arbitrators and the controversy required adjudication by the tribunal. The question whether a third party was a necessary party was left for the arbitral tribunal.

Conclusion: The disputes were held to be arbitrable, and the petition for appointment of arbitrators was allowed by appointing two arbitrators to constitute the tribunal in terms of the agreement.

---