U. P. RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LTD. versus INDURE PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS

U. P. RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LTD. versus INDURE PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS

No valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties as there was no consensus ad idem; material alteration and deletion of key clauses in the draft agreement prevented formation of a concluded contract. The court alone has jurisdiction to decide existence and validity of an arbitration agreement; arbitrators cannot do so conclusively. Acquiescence does not confer jurisdiction, and doctrine of indoor management is inapplicable in the present context.

Parties
Appellant: U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd.; Respondent: Indure Pvt. Ltd.; Respondent's Advocate: E.C. Agrwala; Respondent's Advocate: Mahesh Agarwala
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 February 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Single Judge Decision (delhi High Court, O.m.p. No. 62 of 1987)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Existence and Validity of Arbitration Agreements, Consensus Ad Idem, Competency of Arbitrators, Doctrine of Estoppel, Contingent Contracts, Doctrine of Indoor Management
Arbitration Contract Law Company Law Existence and Validity of Arbitration Agreements Consensus Ad Idem Competency of Arbitrators Doctrine of Estoppel Contingent Contracts +1 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 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd.

Appellant

Indure Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent

E.C. Agrwala

Respondent's Advocate

Mahesh Agarwala

Respondent's Advocate

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Single Judge Decision (delhi High Court, O.m.p. No. 62 of 1987)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties
  2. 2 Whether the court or arbitrators have jurisdiction to decide the existence or validity of arbitration agreements
  3. 3 Whether material alterations in a draft agreement preclude the existence of a concluded contract

Ratio Decidendi

No valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties as there was no consensus ad idem; material alteration and deletion of key clauses in the draft agreement prevented formation of a concluded contract. The court alone has jurisdiction to decide existence and validity of an arbitration agreement; arbitrators cannot do so conclusively. Acquiescence does not confer jurisdiction, and doctrine of indoor management is inapplicable in the present context.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • It is declared that there existed no arbitration agreement between the parties.
  • The reference to arbitration is declared illegal.