TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a landlord-tenant dispute governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is arbitrable; whether Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 confines the court only to the bare existence of an arbitration agreement; and whether the earlier view on non-arbitrability of such disputes required reconsideration, with the interim stay on arbitral proceedings to be continued or lifted.
Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 does not contain any express bar against arbitration of disputes concerning determination of lease, forfeiture, relief against forfeiture, or allied tenancy claims. Sections 114 and 114A provide limited discretionary relief to tenants, but they do not create an exclusive public-forum regime comparable to special rent-control statutes. On the broader test of arbitrability, only disputes reserved exclusively for public fora, or rights in rem incapable of private adjudication, stand excluded. A lease dispute under the Transfer of Property Act is a private dispute in personam and does not fall within the category of special-statute tenancy matters protected by a statutory forum. Section 11(6A) is confined to the existence of an arbitration agreement and does not authorise a wider inquiry that would exclude arbitration merely because a dispute may later be found non-arbitrable. The earlier view in Himangni Enterprises was found to need reconsideration by a larger Bench.
Conclusion: Disputes arising under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 are not shown to be inherently non-arbitrable on the reasoning accepted in this judgment, and the contrary earlier view was referred for reconsideration by a Bench of three Judges.
Final Conclusion: The matter was referred to a larger Bench, and the stay on the arbitral proceedings was lifted so that the arbitration could proceed.
Ratio Decidendi: A tenancy dispute governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is not excluded from arbitration by necessary implication merely because the statute provides limited relief against forfeiture; exclusion of arbitration requires an express bar or a clear statutory scheme reserving such disputes exclusively for public fora.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
