Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Applying the ‘eye of the needle’ test, the Court has no hesitation in observing that the prima facie scrutiny of the facts of the present case, leads to a clear conclusion that there is not even a vestige of doubt that the claim is non-arbitrable.”
Even if it is presumed that signing an agreement with an arbitration clause can be regarded as submission of a (non-existent) dispute to arbitration, it will not follow that as a matter of law, since there will be no implied authority to execute such a contract. All these are issues that will pose mixed questions of fact and law and will relate to the substance of existence rather than the form of existence, i.e., a written agreement.
Supreme Court clarified that the limited jurisdiction of the referral Courts under Section 11 must not be misused by parties in order to force other parties to the arbitration agreement to participate in a time-consuming and costly arbitration process.
“Consequent on introduction of sub-Section 6(A) in Section 11, the Supreme Court has in several decisions held that the jurisdiction of the referral Court is now circumscribed.”
