Final Determination On Question Of Arbitrability Should Be Made By The Arbitrator: Delhi High Court

The bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that the Court can interfere only when the dispute is ex-facie not arbitrable. It held that an agreement prima facie exists when it contains the signature of the parties and attestation by a Notary Public.

Facts

The parties entered into an agreement to Sell dated 02.01.2008. Clause 7 of the agreement provided for resolution of disputes through arbitration. A dispute arose between the parties leading to the invocation of arbitration by the petitioner vide a letter dated 15.09.2022 proposing appointment of a sole arbitrator.

Upon the failure of the parties to mutually appoint the arbitrator, the petitioner filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Act seeking appointment by the High Court.

Objections

The respondent made the following objections to the appointment of the arbitrator:

• There exists no arbitration agreement between the parties as the documents relied upon by the petitioner are disputed.
• The respondent has never signed the agreement relied upon by the petitioner.

Analysis by the Court

The Court observed that the agreement bears the signature of both the parties and attestation by a notary.

The Court held that final determination on the issue of arbitrability of the dispute and the subject matter should be made by the arbitrator. It held that the scope of Court exercising power under Section 11 of the A&C Act is limited to a prima facie examination of the existence of the agreement.

The Court held that the Court can interfere only when the dispute is ex-facie not arbitrable. It held that an agreement prima facie exists when it contains the signature of the parties and attestation by a Notary Public.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and appointed the arbitrator.

Case Title: Prince Chadha v. Amardeep Singh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 426

Date: 02.04.2024

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Anil Sharma, Ms. Kalpana A., Mr. Arpit Sharma & Mr. Anuj Sehgal, Advocates.

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Abhinash Barik, Mr. K.R. Satapathy & Mr. Merusagar Samantray, Advocates.

Click Here To Read/Download Order