Arbitrability of property-linked disputes confirmed where broad clauses covered later deeds and fraud was unsubstantiated.

A civil dispute arising from a conveyance deed and development agreements was held arbitrable under the broad arbitration clause in earlier tripartite agreements, because the later instruments derived their source from those agreements. At the referral stage after the 2015 amendment, the court's scrutiny is confined to the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and whether the dispute is manifestly non-arbitrable. A challenge to cancellation or declaration of rights over an immovable property document was treated as an action in personam, and the fraud allegation was not shown to exclude arbitration. Questions on the existence and validity of the clause could be determined by the arbitral tribunal under kompetenz-kompetenz.

---

---

Issues: Whether the civil dispute arising out of the conveyance deed and development agreements was liable to be referred to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: The arbitration clause contained in the two tripartite agreements was broad enough to cover disputes touching or arising from the later conveyance deed and development agreements, since those later instruments derived their source from the earlier agreements. After the 2015 amendment, the court's scrutiny at the referral stage is limited to whether a valid arbitration agreement exists and whether the dispute is manifestly non-arbitrable. The dispute did not fall within any recognised category of non-arbitrability. A challenge to cancellation or declaration of rights in relation to an immovable property document is an action in personam, not an action in rem. The plea of fraud was also not substantiated so as to exclude arbitration. Questions relating to the existence and validity of the arbitration clause could be decided by the arbitral tribunal itself under the doctrine of kompetenz-kompetenz.

Conclusion: The dispute was arbitrable and was correctly referred to arbitration; the challenge to the referral order failed.

---