Supreme Court of India: Section 11 Courts Cannot Exclude Claims as Non-Arbitrable
Stories are grouped across languages, rewritten into a fixed editorial format, and linked to original sources.
TL;DR
- Supreme Court of India confirms limited court inquiry at Section 11 arbitration stage.
- Courts must only decide if an arbitration agreement exists, not exclude claims as non-arbitrable.
- Arbitral tribunal must resolve any objections over arbitrability of claims.
- Delhi High Court order partially set aside; all claims to be referred to arbitration.
Overview
The Supreme Court of India decided that a court exercising jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is limited to determining whether an arbitration agreement exists. If such an agreement exists, all claims must be referred to arbitration, and any objections over whether particular claims are non-arbitrable should be resolved by the arbitral tribunal.
What Happened
The Supreme Court of India reviewed an appeal arising from a Delhi High Court order, which, while appointing an arbitral tribunal under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, excluded certain claims as non-arbitrable.
The appellant challenged the High Court's exclusion of specific claims, arguing that the court's role at the Section 11 stage is solely to determine the existence of an arbitration agreement.
The Supreme Court examined recent and prior case law, along with the relevant statutory provision, and reiterated that Section 11(6A) restricts the court's inquiry to the existence of an arbitration agreement.
The Court held that whether claims are non-arbitrable or fall under excepted matters is for the arbitral tribunal to decide, not the appointing court. It set aside the High Court's decision to exclude certain claims, allowing all claims to be referred to the tribunal.
Context
At issue was whether the Indian courts, at the stage of appointing an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, could also decide if some claims were non-arbitrable.
This follows a line of Indian Supreme Court decisions emphasizing minimal judicial intervention and confining the court's inquiry to the existence of an arbitration agreement.
Why It Matters
- Clarifies the limited role of Indian courts at the Section 11 arbitration stage.
- Ensures greater autonomy for arbitral tribunals to decide on arbitrability of claims.
- Provides guidance for future Section 11 applications and judicial appointments in India.