Redefinition Of Key Aspects Of Arbitration In India

Co-authored by Malavika Menon

  1. Non-Arbitrable Disputes in India

It is an established legal principle that all disputes relating to rights in personam are considered to be amenable to arbitration and all disputes relating to rights in rem are required to be adjudicated by courts and public tribunals. However, the same is not set in stone and is subject to the facts and circumstances of each case.

In a landmark judgement of the Apex Court in Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. Vs. SBI Home Finance Ltd. and Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 5440 of 2002], it was inter-alia held that certain categories of cases, though not expressly reserved for adjudication by public fora (courts and Tribunals), may by necessary implication stand excluded from the purview of private fora. In view thereof, where the cause/dispute is in arbitrable i.e. the same is of a nature which renders it incapable of being submitted to arbitration, the court, will refuse to refer the parties to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the “Act“) despite the fact that the parties might have agreed upon arbitration as the forum for settlement of such disputes.

In furtherance thereto, the Court enlisted the following non-arbitrable disputes:

  1. disputes relating to rights and liabilities which give rise to or arise out of criminal offences;
  2. matrimonial disputes relating to divorce, judicial separation, restitution of conjugal rights, child custody;
  3. guardianship matters;
  4. insolvency and winding up matters;
  5. testamentary matters (grant of probate, letters of administration and succession certificate); and
  6. eviction or tenancy matters governed by special statutes where the tenant enjoys statutory protection against eviction and only the specified courts are conferred jurisdiction to grant eviction or decide the disputes.

The Apex Court cited the judgement laid down in Vimal Kishor Shah and Ors. Vs. Jayesh Dinesh Shah and Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 8164 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 13369 of 2013)], wherein another category of non-arbitrable disputes was identified viz., disputes relating to trusts, trustees and beneficiaries arising out of trust deeds and the Indian Trust Act, 1882. This would hold true despite the existence of an arbitration agreement to that effect between the parties.

  1. Whether mere allegation of fraud renders a matter in arbitrable

In a judgement of the Supreme Court in N. Radhakrishnan v. Maestro Engineers and Ors., it was held that where there are serious allegations of fraud, the matter warranted trial by a court and not an arbitrator as the civil court would be the more competent authority to decide the same.

However, in a recent judgement of the Supreme Court in A. Ayyasamy Vs. A. Paramasivam and Ors. [Civil Appeal Nos.8245-8246 of 2016], the Supreme Court has while agreeing with the principle laid down in N. Radhakrishnan v. Maestro Engineers and Ors inter-alia held that where there are allegations of fraud simplicitor and such allegations are merely alleged, it may not be necessary to nullify the effect of the arbitration agreement between the parties as such issues can be determined by an arbitral tribunal. The Supreme Court has attempted to ensure that this does not become a convenient mode of avoiding the process of arbitration by simply using the device of making allegations of fraud and pleading that issue of fraud needs to be decided only by a civil court.

In the light of the above, it is quite evident that where there are simple allegations of fraud touching upon the internal affairs of the party inter se which have no implication in the public domain, the arbitration clause in an arbitration agreement need not be avoided and the parties can be relegated to arbitration.

The Supreme Court has reiterated the same view in the recent case of Ameet Lalchand Shah and Ors. Vs. Rishab Enterprises and Ors. [2018 (4) SCJ 654]. (supra)

  1. Reference to Arbitration in the absence of arbitration clause

The Supreme Court of India in the case of Chloro Controls (I) P. Ltd. Vs. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. and Ors. [(2013) 1 SCC 641] has inter-alia dealt with the issue as to whether a dispute may be referred to arbitration as a whole or in part where the parties are claiming through a party to the arbitration agreement where:

  1. multiple agreements have been signed between different parties and where only some contain an arbitration clause and others do not; and
  2. the parties are not identically common in proceedings before the Court (in a suit) and the arbitration agreement.

The Supreme Court has inter-alia held that, (i) the requirement for an arbitration agreement to be in writing, is an expression incapable of strict construction and required to be construed liberally; and further that (ii) a non-signatory or third party could be subject to arbitration without their prior consent in exceptional cases. In order to reach this conclusion, the Court will need to examine these exceptions from the touchstone of a direct relationship to the party signatory to the arbitration agreement, direct commonality of the subject matter and the agreement between the parties being a composite transaction.

In the recent case of Ameet Lalchand Shah and Ors. Vs. Rishab Enterprises and Ors. [2018 (4) SCJ 654], the Apex Court was posed with a similar issue as to whether all parties to the four agreements can be referred to arbitration despite one of the agreements not having an arbitration clause.

After having analyzed the commercial understanding surrounding the four agreements, the Court was of the opinion that there was a clear nexus amongst the four agreements which were culminating into one composite arrangement. Thus, despite the absence of an arbitration agreement in one of the four agreements (not being the principal agreement), the matter could most certainly be remanded to arbitration in view of the fact that the principal agreement contained an arbitration clause.  


By virtue of the aforesaid rulings, the Supreme Court has redefined certain key aspects of arbitration in India which were essentially res integra and not specifically provided for under the Act.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Media Coverage

About Dhaval Vussonji

Ask a question

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

Legal Disclaimer

User Acknowledgement

By proceeding further and clicking on the “AGREE” button herein below, I acknowledge that I of my own accord wish to know more about Dhaval Vussonji & Associates for my own information and use. I further acknowledge that there has been no solicitation, invitation or inducement of any sort whatsoever from Dhaval Vussonji & Associates or any of its members to create an Attorney-Client relationship through this knowledgesite. I further acknowledge having read and understood the Disclaimer below.


This knowledgesite ( is a resource for informational purposes only and is intended, but not promised or guaranteed, to be correct, complete, and up-to-date. Dhaval Vussonji & Associates (DVA) does not warrant that the information contained on this knowledgesite is accurate or complete, and hereby disclaims any and all liability to any person for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident or any other cause.

DVA further assumes no liability for the interpretation and/or use of the information contained on this knowledgesite, nor does it offer a warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The owner of this knowledgesite does not intend links from this site to other internet knowledgesites to be referrals to, endorsements of, or affiliations with the linked entities. DVA is not responsible for, and makes no representations or warranties about, the contents of Web sites to which links may be provided from this Web site.

This knowledgesite is not intended to be a source of advertising or solicitation and the contents of the knowledgesite should not be construed as legal advice. The reader should not consider this information to be an invitation for a lawyer-client relationship and should not rely on information provided herein and should always seek the advice of competent counsel licensed to practice in the relevant country/state. Transmission, receipt or use of this knowledgesite does not constitute or create a lawyer-client relationship. No recipients of content from this knowledgesite should act, or refrain from acting, based upon any or all of the contents of this site.

Furthermore, the owner of this knowledgesite does not wish to represent anyone desiring representation based solely upon viewing this knowledgesite or in a country/state where this knowledgesite fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state. Finally, the reader is warned that the use of Internet e-mail for confidential or sensitive information is susceptible to risks of lack of confidentiality associated with sending email over the Internet.