M/S MAYAVTI TRADING PVT. LTD. versus PRADYUAT DEB BURMAN

M/S MAYAVTI TRADING PVT. LTD. versus PRADYUAT DEB BURMAN

Section 11(6A) must be understood narrowly as confining the court to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement (following Duro Felguera); the omission of s.11(6A) by the 2019 Amendment reflects a move to institutional appointment of arbitrators so that courts need not determine existence of the arbitration agreement in the appointment process; accordingly United India Insurance Co. v. Antique Art Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 5 SCC 362 was overruled to the extent it misstated the law.

Parties
Appellant: M/S MAYAVTI TRADING PVT. LTD.; Respondent: PRADYUAT DEB BURMAN
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (civil Appellate Jurisdiction) / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Section 11(6 A), Arbitration and Conciliation (amendment) Act, 2015, 2019, Institutional Arbitration, Appointment of Arbitrators, Existence of Arbitration Agreement, Overruling Precedent
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Arbitration Statutory Amendment Judicial Review Section 11(6 A) Arbitration and Conciliation (amendment) Act, 2015 Arbitration and Conciliation (amendment) Act, 2019 Institutional Arbitration +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M/S MAYAVTI TRADING PVT. LTD.

Appellant

PRADYUAT DEB BURMAN

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (civil Appellate Jurisdiction) / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Effect of Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (as inserted by the 2015 Amendment)
  2. 2 Effect of omission of Section 11(6A) by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019
  3. 3 Scope of court's role in appointments under Section 11 and whether courts should determine existence of arbitration agreement or leave preliminary issues to arbitrators

Ratio Decidendi

Section 11(6A) must be understood narrowly as confining the court to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement (following Duro Felguera); the omission of s.11(6A) by the 2019 Amendment reflects a move to institutional appointment of arbitrators so that courts need not determine existence of the arbitration agreement in the appointment process; accordingly United India Insurance Co. v. Antique Art Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 5 SCC 362 was overruled to the extent it misstated the law.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Judgment and order of the High Court dated 12.03.2019 is not interfered with.