MANGAL CREDIT AND FINCORP LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MR DHIRAV KISHOR VEERA v. GBL CHEMICAL LIMITED
Discusses the scope of court's power under Section 11 and the arbitrability of fraud allegations.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:9267
Decision Date: 18-06-2025
List of Laws
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: The judgment concerns an application filed under Section 11 of the Act, seeking reference of disputes to arbitration. The primary objection raised by the respondents was that the loan agreement was a product of fraud, rendering the disputes non-arbitrable. The court considered the scope of its jurisdiction under Section 11, particularly in light of Section 11(6A), which restricts the court's role to "examining" the existence of the arbitration agreement. The court noted the legislature's choice of "examination" as opposed to "adjudication," emphasizing that the court must examine if the formal agreement exists. The court also referred to Section 16 of the Act, stating that questions of existential substance fall squarely within the domain of the arbitral tribunal. The court directed the arbitral tribunal to frame the issue of arbitrability based on fraud as a preliminary issue. The court also referred to Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1) of the Act, directing the learned Sole Arbitrator to forward the statutory Statement of Disclosure to the parties.
🔒 For Members Only