NLA Arbitration Newsletter
Key rulings from the Delhi High Court on the prerequisites for arbitral referral, determination of the seat of arbitration, limitation at the Section 11 stage, enforcement of foreign awards, interest in arbitral awards, and the scope of merits-based objections before the Court.
Delhi High Court — Petitioner must demonstrate both a valid arbitration agreement and an arbitrable dispute before the Court will refer the matter; courts must not act mechanically
The Petitioner entered into a Tripartite Agreement with the Respondents for the delivery of 1,500 metric tons of Areca Nuts. The initial delivery of 150 metric tons was of unsatisfactory and defective quality. Even after a Settlement Agreement was reached, the Respondents initiated legal action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging non-payment despite the Petitioner having furnished post-dated cheques to settle the dispute. The Petitioner then invoked the arbitration clause in the Tripartite Agreement, nominated three arbitrators, but received no response from the Respondents. Accordingly, the Petitioner approached the Delhi High Court seeking appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Respondent No. 1 challenged the petition’s validity on the ground that there was no valid arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Act, arguing that a mere mention of an arbitration clause was insufficient. The Petitioner countered by presenting the executed Tripartite Agreement, e-way bills, and tax invoices.
The Single Judge Bench relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in DLF Home Developers Limited v. Rajapura Homes Private Limited & Anr, which held that Courts are not expected to act mechanically and merely deliver disputes to the chosen Arbitrator; instead, Courts are obliged to apply their minds to core preliminary issues within the framework of Section 11(6-A). Accordingly, the High Court held that even where a valid arbitration agreement exists, the Court has authority to reject a prayer for referral if the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate the existence of an arbitrable dispute between the parties. The purpose of a Section 21 notice is to apprise the other party of the disputes, and this requirement must be meaningfully satisfied.
Key Takeaway
A Section 11(6) petition requires the Petitioner to establish two distinct prerequisites: the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and the existence of an arbitrable dispute. A Court entertaining such a petition must not act mechanically; it must apply its mind to these core preliminary issues within the framework of Section 11(6-A), even though its enquiry at this stage is limited in scope. Referral will be declined where either prerequisite is not demonstrated.
Delhi High Court — Seat of arbitration is determined by its connection to the arbitral proceedings, not by the cause of action for the underlying dispute
The Delhi High Court held that in the absence of a clear indication such as an exclusive jurisdiction clause, the location where arbitration proceedings take place will be treated as the seat of arbitration. This principle is consistent with Section 18(4) of the MSME Act, which permits medium or small enterprises to approach a facilitation council at their own location for dispute resolution.
The dispute concerned the arbitration provision in the General Conditions of Contract (GCC), specifically the “Settlement of Disputes & Arbitration” clause, which set out the process for resolving disagreements but did not specify a seat or contain an exclusive jurisdiction clause. Clause 25 of the GCC granted the arbitrator the authority to choose the location of arbitration. The Petitioner relied on Article 7(1) of the Integrity Pact, which required disputes to be dealt with at the headquarters of the owner/principal’s division, but the High Court noted that Article 7(5) of the Integrity Pact expressly excluded arbitration as a mode of resolution for disputes under the Pact. Accordingly, the dispute resolution processes in the main Agreement and the Integrity Pact were treated as separate regimes.
Citing BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC and Inox Renewables Ltd. v. Jayesh Electricals Ltd., the Court affirmed that the seat of arbitration is determined by its connection with the arbitral proceedings themselves, not by the place where the cause of action arose. Since the arbitration proceedings had been conducted solely at Pathankot, that was held to be the seat. The Petitioner’s contention that Delhi should be treated as the seat was accordingly rejected. The Court also drew support from the Kerala High Court’s ruling in Shreyas Marketing v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, which held that awards under Section 18 of the MSME Act may be challenged before the appropriate court at the seat of the concerned facilitation council.
Key Takeaway
Where the arbitration agreement is silent on the seat, the seat is the place where the arbitration is actually conducted. The cause of action for the underlying dispute is irrelevant to this determination. Parties wishing to specify a seat of arbitration distinct from the place of proceedings must do so expressly through an exclusive jurisdiction or seat clause; otherwise, the physical location of proceedings will govern.
Delhi High Court — Court may consider limitation at the Section 11 stage only in specific circumstances; the merits of limitation must be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal
The Delhi High Court held that when hearing a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for the appointment of a sole arbitrator, the Court should primarily concern itself with whether a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties. Questions of limitation should generally be deferred to the Arbitral Tribunal, except in specific circumstances where the bar is evident on the face of the record.
The Petitioner approached the Delhi High Court for appointment of a sole arbitrator after receiving negative responses from the Respondents to its arbitration invocation notice. The sole objection raised by the Respondents was that the petition was time-barred under the Limitation Act, 1963.
Relying on Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn. and BSNL v. Nortel Networks (India) (P) Ltd., the High Court held that the Court may consider the question of limitation in a Section 11 petition, but only in specific circumstances. The Court’s role at this stage is to verify the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. The final decision on whether the claims are barred by limitation falls within the exclusive domain of the Arbitral Tribunal, as the forum chosen by the parties for determination of all disputes. Finding a live controversy in the documentation presented, the High Court held it proper to defer these issues to the Arbitral Tribunal. The dispute was referred to arbitration at the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), with the arbitrator to be selected from DIAC’s panel and to furnish the requisite declaration under Section 12 of the Act before commencing proceedings.
Key Takeaway
At the Section 11 stage, the Court’s inquiry is largely confined to verifying the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. Questions of limitation on the underlying claims—unless the bar is patently obvious from the pleadings—should be reserved for the Arbitral Tribunal. This approach respects the principle of minimal judicial intervention and the legislative intent underlying Section 11(6-A) of the Arbitration Act.
Delhi High Court — Only fundamental public policy violations justify refusing enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under Section 48; objections waived if not raised during arbitration
The Delhi High Court ruled that objections about the composition of an arbitral tribunal cannot be a ground for refusing enforcement of a foreign arbitral award where those objections were never raised before the tribunal or the court at the seat of arbitration. The party against whom the award was made primarily challenged the tribunal’s composition, alleging that it did not comply with the arbitration agreement (which required LMAA members) and breached significant provisions of Indian law, particularly the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958. The party also argued that the award exceeded the claims made and would be contrary to Indian public policy if enforced.
The High Court, applying Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, affirmed that only courts at the seat of arbitration hold the power to annul an award; enforcement courts have limited jurisdiction focused solely on enforceability. The objection based on public policy must meet specific international standards: only violations of fundamental public policy of India—not all statutory breaches—qualify as grounds for refusing enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Since the composition objection had not been raised during arbitration proceedings or before the court at the seat, the High Court held the objection to be groundless and opportunistic.
The Court also noted that while it retains a residual discretion to refuse enforcement even where Section 48 conditions are met, it cannot review the merits of the dispute. The challenge to the tribunal’s composition was accordingly dismissed and enforcement of the foreign awards was upheld. The party against whom the judgment was made was directed to deposit ₹8 crores within four weeks.
Key Takeaway
A party that fails to raise objections about tribunal composition during the arbitration proceedings or before the court at the seat of arbitration cannot revive those objections at the enforcement stage. The public policy ground under Section 48 of the Arbitration Act is strictly limited to fundamental violations of Indian public policy—routine statutory breaches do not suffice. Enforcement courts have no jurisdiction to re-examine the merits of a foreign award.
Delhi High Court — Arbitral award of ₹270 crores in SpiceJet takeover dispute set aside and remanded; arbitrators must provide detailed reasoning when awarding interest
The Delhi High Court Division Bench reversed the orders of the Single Judge, which had upheld an arbitral award directing SpiceJet Limited and its Chairman, Mr. Ajay Singh, to repay ₹270,86,99,209 plus interest to KAL Airways Private Limited and Mr. Kalanithi Maran. The Division Bench allowed the appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, set aside the Single Judge’s judgment, and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
The dispute arose from the takeover of SpiceJet by Ajay Singh from KAL Airways and Mr. Kalanithi Maran. The Appellants argued that the transaction aimed to acquire the debt-ridden SpiceJet and relieve Mr. Maran of personal guarantees for loan repayments. The Arbitral Tribunal had considered KAL and Mr. Maran’s alternative plea based on Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872—dealing with restitution when an agreement is deemed void—even though the contractual arrangements were not actually void.
The Division Bench found the Single Judge’s judgment inadequate for failing to address the Appellants’ significant contentions. In particular, the Single Judge had not substantively engaged with the arguments concerning Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act and the effect of the Arbitral Tribunal’s own findings of contractual breaches by KAL and Mr. Maran on the refund direction. The Appellants contended that the refund directive contradicted the terms of the Share and Share Purchase Agreement (SSPA), under which any repayment obligation was to arise only after eight years.
On the issue of interest, the Division Bench criticised the Arbitral Tribunal’s and Single Judge’s handling of the interest award, highlighting the absence of a statutory basis and sufficient reasoning, particularly in light of the 2015 Amendment to the Arbitration Act, which mandates a specific post-award interest rate. Citing relevant Supreme Court decisions, the Court emphasised that arbitrators must provide detailed and reasoned justification when awarding interest.
Key Takeaway
An arbitral award directing restitution under Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act must be scrutinised against the actual contractual terms and the Tribunal’s own findings on breach. A refund direction that is inconsistent with the parties’ agreed payment schedule or contradicted by the Tribunal’s own findings on fault will not survive Section 34/37 scrutiny. Additionally, arbitrators are required to provide detailed and reasoned justification for any award of interest, taking into account the applicable post-award interest rate prescribed by the 2015 Amendment.
Delhi High Court — Objection on insufficiency of service is a merits-based issue to be raised before the Arbitrator, not in Section 11 proceedings
The Delhi High Court held that a complaint about the insufficiency of service is a merits-based issue and ought to be raised before the Arbitrator, not before the Court in Section 11 proceedings. Finding a valid arbitration agreement in place, the Court directed the Delhi International Arbitration Centre to appoint an arbitrator.
The Petitioner had served the Respondent with a notice invoking arbitration in accordance with Clause 19 of the Service Agreement and Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Despite this, the Respondent failed to reply or deposit the necessary funds. Accordingly, the Petitioner approached the Delhi High Court with a petition under Section 11(5) of the Act for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator.
The Court observed that the Petitioner had made sufficient compliance with the arbitration clause, including attempts at amicable settlement prior to initiating arbitration. The Respondent’s objection about the insufficiency of service was held to go to the merits of the dispute. Since a valid arbitration agreement had been established, the petition was allowed. The Respondent was free to raise its objection about service before the appointed arbitrator.
Key Takeaway
At the Section 11 stage, the Court’s role is limited to verifying the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and sufficient compliance with the pre-arbitration procedure. Objections that are substantive or merits-based in nature—such as a challenge to the adequacy of service—cannot be adjudicated by the Court at this stage and must be raised before the Arbitral Tribunal once constituted.
© Nirka Law Advisory. All rights reserved. For queries, connect with us.
