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

Acquittal in Murder Based on Inconclusive Circumstantial Evidence

In Vaibhav v. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 800), the Supreme Court acquitted a medical student of murder, finding no complete chain of circumstantial evidence to prove he fired the fatal shot. Suspicious acts like hiding clothes and cleaning the scene supported conviction under Section 201 IPC but not under Section 302 IPC. Medical and... Read more » Read more »

Rights In Rem Are Not Arbitrable – Supreme Court

In Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd. (2011), the Supreme Court of India ruled that disputes involving the enforcement of mortgage rights are non-arbitrable because they pertain to rights in rem—public rights affecting immovable property—rather than rights in personam, which are private and suitable for arbitration. Although Booz Allen sought to... Read more » Read more »

M/s. Shriram Investments Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax III, Chennai (2024 INSC 760)

The appellant initially filed a return in November 1989 and revised it twice. The Income Tax Officer rejected the second revised return, declaring that it was barred by limitation u/s 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which only allows a revised return to be filed before the earlier of two dates – one year... 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.