Arbitrability of Claims Cannot Be Decided at Section 11 Stage

  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Case Snippets
  6. /
  7. Arbitrability of Claims...

In Office for Alternative Architecture v. Ircon Infrastructure And Services Ltd., 2025 INSC 665, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside an order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court order which had excluded certain claims as non-arbitrable in view of “excepted matters” clauses in the contract, while appointing an arbitral tribunal under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court held that under Section 11(6A), inserted by the 2015 amendment, the role of the Court at this stage is confined to examining the existence of an arbitration agreement, “and not other issues”. Relying on the seven-judge ruling in In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements and the Indian Stamp Act (2023) and the three-judge bench in SBI General Insurance Co. v. Krish Spinning (2024), the Court clarified that questions of arbitrability, including whether claims fall within excepted categories, must be left to the arbitral tribunal. The impugned order was therefore set aside to the extent it excluded claims, and the appeal was allowed.

Tags:

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. Cp Power And Industrial Solutions Limited And Anr., SLP(C) No. 8630 of 2020, Date of Judgment: 12-05-2021

The Supreme Court has held that there cannot be a recovery of cess solely on the basis of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) without any statutory adjudication process. It is well settled that when a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it is to be done... Read more » Read more »

K. Shanthamma Vs. State of Telangana, (2022) 4 SCC 574

That the proof of ‘demand of bribe’ by a public servant and its acceptance by him is sine qua non for establishing the offence of bribe taking, coming under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). Read more »

Balu Sudam Khalde & Another Vs. State of Maharashtra; 2023 SCC Online SC 355

The Evidence of Injured witness has greater evidentiary value, their statements can’t be discarded lightly. Also the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that, Suggestions made to the witness by the defence counsel and the reply to such suggestions would definitely form part of the evidence and can be relied upon by the Court along with... Read more » Read more »

Disclaimer

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India under Advocates Act, 1961 prohibit Advocates or Law Firms from advertising or soliciting work through public domain communications. This website is intended solely to provide information. Karavadi & Associates (“K&A”) does not aim to advertise or solicit clients through this platform. K & A disclaim any responsibility for decisions made by readers/visitors based solely on the content of this website.

By clicking 'AGREE,' readers/visitors agree and acknowledge that the information provided herein (a) does not constitute advertising or solicitation, and (b) is intended solely for their understanding of K & A services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as outlined in our Cookie Policy.