Just a moment...
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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, at the stage of appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court should decline reference on the ground that the petitioner's entitlement under the contract and its privity with the respondents is disputed.
Analysis: The scope of inquiry under Section 11(6-A) is confined to examining the existence of an arbitration agreement. The dispute raised by the respondents concerned whether the petitioner had stepped into the shoes of the original contracting party and whether the contractual rights and the arbitration agreement had been validly assigned. Those are matters which may require evidence and a fuller examination of the contract, correspondence, and the effect of the alleged assignment. Since the existence of arbitration clauses in the underlying agreements was not in dispute, the contested questions of privity, assignment, and arbitrability were not treated as matters to be finally decided at the appointment stage.
Conclusion: The request for appointment of a sole arbitrator was allowed and the matter was referred for arbitration.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 11(6-A), the Court's scrutiny is restricted to the existence of an arbitration agreement, and disputed questions regarding assignment, privity, and arbitrability are ordinarily left to the arbitral tribunal.