2023 INSC 1081 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1854 OF 2023

SUSHMA SHIVKUMAR DAGA & ANR. …APPELLANTS

Versus

MADHURKUMAR RAMKRISHNAJI

BAJAJ & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.

1. The appellants before this Court were the plaintiffs in a civil

suit, filed in the year 2021, seeking declaration that the

Conveyance Deed dated 17.12.2019 to be declared null and void,

and that the registered Development Agreements dated

17.09.2007, 20.11.2007, 30.11.2007, 03.12.2007 and

27.02.2008 stand validly terminated. The

respondents/defendants moved an application under Section 8 of

the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to

as “Arbitration Act”) for referring the matter to arbitration by

2

relying upon the arbitral clause in the two agreements dated

31.03.2007 and 25.07.2008. It was contended that the aforesaid

agreements formed the basis of the Conveyance Deed and the

Development Agreements which are subject matter of the suit.

The Trial Court allowed the application of the defendant and

referred the matter for arbitration, vide its order dated

13.10.2021. This order was challenged in Writ Petition No.8836

of 2021 by the appellants / plaintiffs before the Bombay High

Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 10.12.2021.

Aggrieved by these two orders, the appellants / plaintiffs are now

before this Court.

2.The only question to be decided by us here is whether the

Trial Court and the High Court have rightly referred the matter to

arbitration or the dispute is of such a nature that it is not liable

to be referred to arbitration, as there was no arbitration clause in

the Conveyance Deed dated 17.12.2019 or if there was, yet the

matter in any case is such that it is not arbitrable. The brief facts

of the case are as follows:

M/s Emerald Acres Private Limited (respondent no. 2) was

incorporated by Late Mr. Shivkumar Daga and his wife, Mrs.

Sushma Shivkumar Daga (appellant no.1) on 18.04.2006 to carry

3

on the business of real-estate development. Subsequently, two

Tripartite Agreements were signed between Shivkumar Daga

(hereinafter referred to as ‘SD’), Madhurkumar Ramakrishnaji

Bajaj & Ors. (hereinafter referred to as ‘MB’) and M/s. Emerald

Acres Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘EAPL’) to develop,

trade, and deal with the property and also to acquire such

further properties as may be mutually agreed between the

parties. Both the Tripartite Agreements dated 31.03.2007 and

25.07.2008 contain the following arbitration clause:

“It is agreed between Parties that in the event

of any disputes or differences between the

Parties hereto in relation to this Agreement or

in relation to any matter touching or arising

from this Agreement, the parties shall refer

such disputes and differences to the

arbitration under the provisions of the

Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 or any

statutory modification thereof.”

3.Shivkumar Daga died on 08.05.2011, bequeathing his

assets through a will dated 10.02.2011 to his wife (appellant no.

1) and his son (appellant no. 2), in which a probate petition has

already been filed and as per the records before us the case is

still pending.

4

4.The appellants i.e., SD’s wife and his son then filed a suit

seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the Deed of Conveyance

dated 17.12.2019 be declared null and void, and that the

Development Agreements entered into pursuant to the two

Tripartite Agreements be declared validly terminated.

5.The Conveyance Deed dated 17.12.2019 sought to be

declared void and the five Development Agreements dated

17.09.2007, 20.11.2007, 30.11.2007, 03.12.2007 and

27.02.2008 sought to be declared as validly terminated by the

appellants, all find their source in the two Tripartite Agreements

dated 31.03.2007 and 25.07.2008.

6.The first prerequisite for an application under Section 8, of

an arbitration agreement being there in the 2007 and 2008

Tripartite agreements cannot be denied, as all the other

Development Agreements find their source in the aforesaid two

Tripartite Agreements. The Trial Court and the High Court have

rightly held that the broad language of the “arbitration clause” in

the two Tripartite Agreements dated 31.03.2007 and 25.07.2008

would cover the dispute raised by the appellants before the Civil

Court, and hence the case has been rightly referred for

arbitration.

5

7.The role of a ‘Court’ is now in any case, extremely limited in

arbitration matters. The underlying principles of arbitration as

contained in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was

always to have as little interference as possible by a judicial

authority.

Section 5 of the Arbitration Act reads as under:

5. Extent of judicial intervention.—

Notwithstanding anything contained in any

other law for the time being in force, in

matters governed by this Part, no judicial

authority shall intervene except where so

provided in this Part.

Major amendments were made in the Arbitration Act in the

year 2015, inter alia, both in Section 8 and Section 11 of the Act,

in order to further reduce any chances of judicial interference

and now the amended Section 8 of the Arbitration Act reads as

under:

8. Power to refer parties to arbitration

where there is an arbitration agreement.

— (1) A judicial authority, before which an

action is brought in a matter which is the

subject of an arbitration agreement shall, if a

party to the arbitration agreement or any

person claiming through or under him, so

applies not later than the date of submitting

his first statement on the substance of the

dispute, then, notwithstanding any judgment,

decree or order of the Supreme Court or any

6

court, refer the parties to arbitration unless it

finds that prima facie no valid arbitration

agreement exists.

(2) The application referred to in sub-section

(1) shall not be entertained unless it is

accompanied by the original arbitration

agreement or a duly certified copy thereof.

Provided that where the original arbitration

agreement or a certified copy thereof is not

available with the party applying for reference

to arbitration under sub-section (1), and the

said agreement or certified copy is retained by

the other party to that agreement, then, the

party so applying shall file such application

along with a copy of the arbitration agreement

and a petition praying the court to call upon

the other party to produce the original

arbitration agreement or its duly certified copy

before that court.

(3) Notwithstanding that an application has

been made under sub-section (1) and that the

issue is pending before the judicial authority,

an arbitration may be commenced or

continued and an arbitral award made.

The amendments in Section 8 and Section 11 of the Arbitration

Act were based on the following recommendations made in the

246

th

Report of the Law Commission of India, 2014:

“33. It is in this context, the Commission has

recommended amendments to Sections 8 and

11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

1996. The scope of the judicial intervention is

only restricted to situations where the

court/judicial authority finds that the

arbitration agreement does not exist or is null

and void. Insofar as the nature of intervention

7

is concerned, it is recommended that in the

event the court/judicial authority is prima

facie satisfied against the argument

challenging the arbitration agreement,

it shall appoint the arbitrator and/or refer the

parties to arbitration, as the case may be. The

amendment envisages that the judicial

authority shall not refer the parties to

arbitration only if it finds that there does not

exist an arbitration agreement or that it is null

and void. If the judicial authority is of the

opinion that prima facie the arbitration

agreement exists, then it shall refer the

dispute to arbitration, and leave the existence

of the arbitration agreement to be finally

determined by the Arbitral Tribunal. However,

if the judicial authority concludes that the

agreement does not exist, then the conclusion

will be final and not prima facie.”

Note to the clause for amendment of Section 8 by the Arbitration

and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2015 reads as under:

Clause 4 of the Bill seeks to amend Section 8

of the principal Act to specify that the judicial

authority shall refer the parties to arbitration

unless it finds that prima facie no valid

arbitration agreement exists. A proviso below

sub-section (2) is inserted to provide that

where the original arbitration agreement or

certified copy thereof is not available with the

party who apply under sub-section (1), and is

retained by the other party, such party shall

file a copy of the arbitration agreement along

with application under sub-section (1) praying

to the court to call upon the other party to

produce the original arbitration agreement or

its duly certified copy before the court.

8

The basic purpose for bringing an amendment in Section 8

(as well as Section 11 of the Arbitration Act) was to minimise the

scope of judicial authority in matters of arbitration, except on the

ground where prima facie, no valid arbitration agreement exists.

8.In the present case, the 2007 as well as the 2008 Tripartite

Agreement, forms the basis for all subsequent agreements ,

conveyance, etc. The arbitration clause is also very wide in its

scope, as we have already seen. At the sake of repetition, the

2008 Tripartite Agreement states that “any dispute, in relation to

these agreements or in relation to any matter touching or arising

from this Agreement, shall be referred to arbitration.” The

contention of the appellants therefore that the dispute raised in

the civil suit is non- arbitrable is also not correct. The dispute

relates to a property which is the subject matter of the two

tripartite agreements dated 31.03.2007 and 25.07.2008.

9.In the Tripartite Agreement dated 31.03.2007 the intention

of the parties was clearly to acquire and develop properties,

which was indeed done through the development agreements

(sought to be declared as validly terminated by the appellants).

Clause 11 of the Tripartite Agreement dated 31.03.2007 reads as

under:

9

“SD and MB have in due course agreed to

develop, further trade and deal with the

Property and also to acquire such further

properties as may be mutually agreed

between the Parties and any such further

acquisitions that may be made through a

Special Purpose Vehicle viz. the Company

wherein MB and SD shall have equity in the

proportion of 90:10.”

10.It is true that in Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. v. SBI

Home Finance Limited and Others, (2011) 5 SCC 532 this

Court had set apart cases where the dispute was totally non-

arbitrable, such as matrimonial disputes, guardianship dispute,

or even we may add disputes relating to consumers, which are

governed by an entirely different Parliamentary legislation known

as Consumer Protection Act, 2019:

“35. The Arbitral Tribunals are private

fora chosen voluntarily by the parties to

the dispute, to adjudicate their disputes in

place of courts and tribunals which are

public fora constituted under the laws of

the country. Every civil or commercial

dispute, either contractual or non-

contractual, which can be decided by a

court, is in principle capable of being

adjudicated and resolved by arbitration

unless the jurisdiction of the Arbitral

Tribunals is excluded either expressly or

by necessary implication. Adjudication of

certain categories of proceedings are

reserved by the legislature exclusively for

public fora as a matter of public policy.

10

Certain other 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.

Consequently, where the cause/dispute is

inarbitrable, the court where a suit is

pending, will refuse to refer the parties to

arbitration, under Section 8 of the Act,

even if the parties might have agreed

upon arbitration as the forum for

settlement of such disputes.”

11.Thereafter, this Court in Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading

Corpn., (2021) 2 SCC 1, laid down a fourfold test for determining

when the subject-matter of a dispute in an arbitration agreement

is not arbitrable. These were:

“(1) When cause of action and subject-

matter of the dispute relates to actions in

rem, that do not pertain to subordinate

rights in personam that arise from rights

in rem.

(2) When cause of action and subject-

matter of the dispute affects third-party

rights; have erga omnes effect; require

centralised adjudication, and mutual

adjudication would not be appropriate

and enforceable.

(3) When cause of action and subject-

matter of the dispute relates to

inalienable sovereign and public interest

functions of the State and hence mutual

adjudication would be unenforceable.

(4) When the subject-matter of the

dispute is expressly or by necessary

implication non-arbitrable as per

mandatory statute(s).”

11

Nevertheless, the case before the Civil Court does not fall in any

of the categories, visualised in either Booz Allen (supra) or

Vidya Drolia (supra) referred above.

12.In Vidya Drolia (supra), this Court has held that Court will

only decline reference under Section 8 or under Section 11 of the

Act in rare cases where the Court is certain that either the

arbitration agreement is non-existent, or the dispute is itself

“manifestly non-arbitrable”. This was reiterated by this Court in

NTPC Ltd. v. SPML Infra Ltd. (2023) 9 SCC 385.

13.In BSNL v. Nortel Networks (2021) 5 SCC 738 , this court

had held that reference to the Arbitral Tribunal can be declined

by the Court, only if the dispute is non-arbitrable. For example,

consumer disputes which are entirely different nature of disputes,

statutorily protected under a special legislation. (Smt. M.

Hemalatha Devi & Ors. v. B. Udayasri 2023 INSC 870 ).

14.In any case, Section 16 of the Arbitration Act gives

immense powers to the Arbitral Tribunal, including power to rule

on its own jurisdiction. Section 16 of the Arbitration Act reads

as under:

“16. Competence of arbitral tribunal to

rule on its jurisdiction.—(1) The arbitral

12

tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction,

including ruling on any objections with

respect to the existence or validity of the

arbitration agreement, and for that

purpose,—

(a) an arbitration clause which forms

part of a contract shall be treated as an

agreement independent of the other

terms of the contract; and

(b) a decision by the arbitral tribunal that

the contract is null and void shall not

entail ipso jure the invalidity of the

arbitration clause.

(2) A plea that the arbitral tribunal does

not have jurisdiction shall be raised not

later than the submission of the

statement of defence; however, a party

shall not be precluded from raising such

a plea merely because that he has

appointed, or participated in the

appointment of, an arbitrator.

(3) A plea that the arbitral tribunal is

exceeding the scope of its authority shall

be raised as soon as the matter alleged

to be beyond the scope of its authority is

raised during the arbitral proceedings.

(4) The arbitral tribunal may, in either of

the cases referred to in sub-section (2) or

sub-section (3), admit a later plea if it

considers the delay justified.

(5) The arbitral tribunal shall decide on a

plea referred to in sub-section (2) or sub-

section (3) and, where the arbitral

tribunal takes a decision rejecting the

plea, continue with the arbitral

proceedings and make an arbitral

award.

13

(6) A party aggrieved by such an arbitral

award may make an application for

setting aside such an arbitral award in

accordance with Section 34.”

15.All jurisdictional issues including the existence and the

validity of an arbitration clause can be gone into by the Arbitral

Tribunal. In other words, the Arbitral Tribunal is competent to

decide on its own competence. This aspect has been dealt with in

a recent judgment of this Court in Uttarakhand Purv Sainik

Kalyan Nigam Ltd. v. Northern Coal Field Ltd. (2020) 2 SCC

455. This is what has been stated:

“7.11. The doctrine of “kompetenz-

kompetenz”, also referred to as

“compétence-compétence”, or

“compétence de la recognized”, implies

that the Arbitral Tribunal is empowered

and has the competence to rule on its

own jurisdiction, including determining

all jurisdictional issues, and the

existence or validity of the arbitration

agreement. This doctrine is intended to

minimise judicial intervention, so that

the arbitral process is not thwarted at

the threshold, when a preliminary

objection is raised by one of the parties.

The doctrine of kompetenz-kompetenz is,

however, subject to the exception i.e.

when the arbitration agreement itself is

impeached as being procured by fraud or

deception. This exception would also

apply to cases where the parties in the

process of negotiation, may have entered

into a draft agreement as an antecedent

14

step prior to executing the final contract.

The draft agreement would be a mere

proposal to arbitrate, and not an

unequivocal acceptance of the terms of

the agreement. Section 7 of the Contract

Act, 1872 requires the acceptance of a

contract to be absolute and unqualified

[Dresser Rand S.A. v. Bindal Agro Chem

Ltd., (2006) 1 SCC 751. See

also BSNL v. Telephone Cables Ltd.,

(2010) 5 SCC 213 : (2010) 2 SCC (Civ)

352. Refer to PSA Mumbai Investments

Pte. Ltd. v. Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust,

(2018) 10 SCC 525 : (2019) 1 SCC (Civ)

1] . If an arbitration agreement is not

valid or non-existent, the Arbitral

Tribunal cannot assume jurisdiction to

adjudicate upon the disputes.

Appointment of an arbitrator may be

refused if the arbitration agreement is

not in writing, or the disputes are beyond

the scope of the arbitration agreement.

Article V(1)(a) of the New York

Convention states that recognition and

enforcement of an award may be refused

if the arbitration agreement “is not valid

under the law to which the parties have

subjected it or, failing any indication

thereon, under the law of the country

where the award was made”.

7.12. The legislative intent underlying

the 1996 Act is party autonomy and

minimal judicial intervention in the

arbitral process. Under this regime, once

the arbitrator is appointed, or the

tribunal is constituted, all issues and

objections are to be decided by the

Arbitral Tribunal.

7.13. In view of the provisions of Section

16, and the legislative policy to restrict

judicial intervention at the pre-reference

15

stage, the issue of limitation would

require to be decided by the arbitrator.

Sub-section (1) of Section 16 provides

that the Arbitral Tribunal may rule on its

own jurisdiction, “including

any objections” with respect to the

existence or validity of the arbitration

agreement. Section 16 is as an inclusive

provision, which would comprehend all

preliminary issues touching upon the

jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal. The

issue of limitation is a jurisdictional

issue, which would be required to be

decided by the arbitrator under Section

16, and not the High Court at the pre-

reference stage under Section 11 of the

Act. Once the existence of the arbitration

agreement is not disputed, all issues,

including jurisdictional objections are to

be decided by the arbitrator."

16.The purpose behind giving these powers to the Arbitral

Tribunal is to minimise judicial interference in arbitration

matters. In Weatherford Oil Tool Middle East Ltd. v. Baker

Hughes Singapore PTE 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1464 , this court

had observed that a bare perusal of Section 16 of the Arbitration

Act would indicate that the arbitration clause in a contract would

be an independent agreement in itself and the arbitrator is

empowered to decide upon its existence and validity.

17.After the 2015 amendment, primarily the court only has to

see whether a valid arbitration agreement exists. Additionally,

16

the clear non-arbitrability of cases, such as where a party to the

agreement is statutorily protected, such as a consumer “has also

to be seen by the Court” (Booz Allen supra). Short of the

narrow field stated above, the scope of judicial scrutiny at the

stage of Section 11 (6) or Section 8 is extremely limited.

Objections will nevertheless be raised both on Section 8 and

Section 11 applications. These objections can be genuine, such

as where there is no arbitration clause or where the matter is

itself non-arbitrable, but often these objections could be only to

wriggle out of the statutory commitment of parties to a defined

process of redressal mechanism.

18. In the present case there are broadly three objections of the

appellants on the Section 8 application moved by the respondents

which has already been allowed by the two courts below. The

first objection regarding the absence of an arbitration clause in

the Conveyance Deed dated 17.12.2019 and the development

agreements has already been discussed in detail in the preceding

paragraphs.

19.The second is that the suit filed by the appellants is for

cancellation of a document relating to immovable property i.e.

land and it therefore amounts to an action in rem and hence

17

arbitration is not the remedy. This question however, is no more

res integra. Elaborate analysis on this aspect has been done by

this Court in the case of Deccan Paper Mills v. Regency

Mahavir Properties, (2021) 4 SCC 786 , therein this court after

referring to all the relevant precedents and the case laws has held

that whether it is a suit for cancellation of a deed or a declaration

of rights rising from the deed, it would only be an action in

personam and not in rem. The decision of the Division Bench of

Andhra Pradesh High Court in Aliens Developers (P) Ltd. v.

Janardhan Reddy, 2015 SCC Online Hyd 370 , was held to be

wrong wherein it was held that a suit under Section 31 of Specific

Relief Act amounts to an action in rem and this adjudicatory

function can only be done by the Competent Civil Court and the

powers cannot be exercised by an Arbitrator. The basic

foundation of the Court for holding that a Section 31 suit for

cancellation of a document amounts to an action in rem was held

to be wrong. The entire scope and ambit of the Specific Relief

Act, 1963 was considered and in Deccan Paper Mills (supra),

the anomalies in law for holding such to be an action in rem were

discussed and it was held that a relief sought under the Specific

Relief Act is nothing but an action in personam.

18

20.The third objection is regarding fraud. The plea of fraud

raised by the appellants in their objection to the Section 8

application has never been substantiated. Except for making a

bald allegation of fraud there is nothing else. This Court has

consistently held that a plea of fraud must be serious in nature in

order to oust the jurisdiction of an Arbitrator. In Rashid Raza v.

Sadaf Akhtar, (2019) 8 SCC 710, this Court laid down two

conditions which must be satisfied before the Court can refuse to

refer the matter to the Arbitrator, a forum consciously decided by

parties in an agreement. The first is whether the plea permeates

the entire contract and above all, the arbitration agreement,

rendering it void or secondly, whether the allegation of fraud

touches upon the internal affairs of the parties inter se having no

implication in the public domain. The allegations must have

some implication in public domain to oust the jurisdiction of an

Arbitrator, if an allegation of fraud exists strictly between the

parties concerned, the same will not be termed to be as a serious

nature of fraud and hence would not be barred for arbitration.

21.In the present case, therefore there is absolutely no

ambiguity that both the Tripartite Agreements dated 31.03.2007

and 25.07.2008 contain an arbitration clause, which forms the

19

basis of all subsequent agreements including the agreements

sought to be declared as validly terminated by the appellants and

the conveyance deed sought to be declared as null and void. Both

the trial court as well as the High Court have given a correct

finding on facts as well as on law. We find no scope for

interference in the matter. This appeal hence has no force, and is

hereby dismissed.

No order as to costs.

..……….………………….J.

[ANIRUDDHA BOSE]

...………………………….J.

[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]

New Delhi.

December 15, 2023.