OFFICE FOR ALTERNATIVE ARCHITECTURE versus IRCON INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES LTD.

OFFICE FOR ALTERNATIVE ARCHITECTURE versus IRCON INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES LTD.

Sub-section (6A) of Section 11 requires the Court, when considering an application for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(4),(5) or (6), to confine its examination to the existence of a prima facie arbitration agreement and not determine non-arbitrability of particular claims; the High Court erred in bisecting the appellant's claims and excluding certain claims as non-arbitrable at the Section 11 stage, and those issues must be left to the arbitral tribunal to decide.

Parties
Appellant: Office for Alternative Architecture; Respondent: IRCON Infrastructure and Services Ltd.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal No. 6620 of 2025 / Appeal From Judgment and Order of the High Court of Delhi Dated 06.09.2023 in ARBP No. 1425 of 2022
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Section 11, Existence of Arbitration Agreement, Non Arbitrable Claims, Appointment of Arbitrator, Bisecting Claim
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Civil Procedure Judicial Review of Arbitral Appointment Section 11 Existence of Arbitration Agreement Non Arbitrable Claims Appointment of Arbitrator Bisecting Claim

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Office for Alternative Architecture

Appellant

IRCON Infrastructure and Services Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal No. 6620 of 2025 / Appeal From Judgment and Order of the High Court of Delhi Dated 06.09.2023 in ARBP No. 1425 of 2022

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether while exercising power under Section 11 the Court must confine its consideration to the existence of an arbitration agreement
  2. 2 Whether the Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11, may hold that some claims are non-arbitrable or fall within an excepted category

Ratio Decidendi

Sub-section (6A) of Section 11 requires the Court, when considering an application for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(4),(5) or (6), to confine its examination to the existence of a prima facie arbitration agreement and not determine non-arbitrability of particular claims; the High Court erred in bisecting the appellant's claims and excluding certain claims as non-arbitrable at the Section 11 stage, and those issues must be left to the arbitral tribunal to decide.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • The order of the High Court to the extent it excludes claims mentioned in para 48 (ii), (iii) and (iv) is set aside.
  • The parties are at liberty to take the plea of non-arbitrability of certain claims before the arbitral tribunal, which shall decide the same without being prejudiced by any observations made in the High Court order.