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

Confidentiality Under The Posh Act: Scope, Ambiguity, And Misuse Of The Section 16 Proviso

Confidentiality under the Protection of Women from Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act, 2013 plays an essential role in maintaining the fairness and credibility of the inquiry process. It protects both the dignity of the complainant and the reputation of the respondent, ensuring that the proceedings remain ... Read more »

Borrower Availing Loan for Profit-Generating Exercise Not a Consumer Under Consumer Protection Act

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in its recent judgment in The Central Bank of India & Ors. v. M/s AD Bureau Advertising Pvt. Ltd. & Anr, has categorically held that borrowers who avail loans for commercial or profit-generating purposes do not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’ under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986... Read more »

Ambience Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Ambience Island Apartment Owners, (2021) 2 SCC 163

The Supreme Court held that the execution proceedings and original proceedings are separate and independent. An appeal under S. 23 of the Consumer Protection Act will not lie to Supreme Court against an order which has been passed in the course of execution proceedings. An appeal under S. 23 is maintainable against an order which... 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.