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

Ajay Madhusudan Patel & Ors. v. Jyotrindra S. Patel & Ors

Ajay Madhusudan Patel & Ors. v. Jyotrindra S. Patel & Ors. 1 (On Factors that Signify Intention of Non-Signatory to be bound by the Arbitration Agreement - Yogitha Jammula2 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Madhusudan Patel3 while appointing a sole arbitrator, reiterated factors that signify the intention of a Read more »

Time-Barred on the Face of the Plaint: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection under Order VII Rule 11

In N. Asha Devi v. R. Aravind Kumar & Anr ., the Supreme Court held that where a suit is hopelessly barred by limitation on a plain reading of the plaint, the plaint must be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The Court observed that there can be no Read more »

When To File a Second FIR – Supreme Court Reiterates

The Supreme Court's ruling in State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore (2025 INSC 248) provides much-needed clarity on the circumstances under which a second FIR can be maintained. By holding that a second FIR is justified in cases involving counter-complaints, distinct scopes, broader conspiracies, or newly emerged facts, the 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.