1. Dispute arising from a Buyer-Seller Agreement and ancillary contracts — Petition under Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of arbitrator for composite reference. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1960
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
Balaji Steel Trade – Petitioner
VERSUS
Fludor Benin S.A. & Ors. – Respondents
Arbitration Petition No. 65 of 2023
Decided On : 21-11-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. S. S. Shroff, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Abhijnan Jha, AOR Mr. Pallav Mongia, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. S. S. Shroff, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Abhijnan Jha, AOR Mr. Pallav Mongia, AOR
The jurisdiction for disputes governed by an international arbitration agreement lies with the designated seat, in this case Benin, precluding any proceedings in Indian courts under the Indian Arbitration Act.
Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11(6) - Dismissal of petition for appointment of arbitrator in international commercial arbitration governed by laws of Benin - Jurisdiction of Indian Courts excluded due to the international nature of arbitration as designated in Buyer and Seller Agreement (BSA) - No novation of BSA by subsequent contracts - All disputes must be resolved under the arbitration clause contained in BSA, which stipulates arbitration in Benin - Doctrine of issue estoppel applies as the same issues were previously adjudicated by the High Court. (Paras 23-30)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, Balaji Steel Trade, sought to invoke arbitration for disputes under the BSA with Respondent No.1, Fludor Benin S.A., and the contracts with Respondents No. 2 and 3 in connection with a supply agreement for cottonseed cake. Disputes arose regarding obligations and the invocation of arbitration in Benin against the petitioner’s intention to resolve the matter in India. (Paras 3-12)
Findings of Court:
The court held that the arbitration agreement in the BSA governs the disputes, and it was intentionally established that arbitration would take place in Benin, excluding jurisdiction under Indian law via Section 11. The subsequent contracts did not novate the BSA’s clauses, and the invocation of Part I of the Act in India was legally untenable. (Paras 30-39)
Issues: The main issues include the applicability of arbitration clauses in the BSA versus subsequent Sales Contracts and HSSAs, the presence of issue estoppel, and the jurisdiction of Indian courts in light of international commercial arbitration. (Paras 23-41)
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that since the arbitration clause in the BSA clearly designated Benin as the seat, and governed by Benin law, the jurisdiction of Indian courts is excluded. Furthermore, established legal principles mandate that unless clearly demonstrated, subsequent contracts do not override original agreements unless intended to novate. (Paras 24-39)
Result: Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- contract law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claims composite transaction and novation of arbitration clause — Respondents argue foreign seat excludes Part I of the 1996 Act and lack of privity. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 )
3. BSA is the mother agreement with Benin as the juridical seat — Ancillary contracts do not novate the primary agreement — Group of companies doctrine inapplicable. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 )
4. Part I of the 1996 Act is inapplicable to foreign-seated arbitrations — Mother agreement's arbitration clause prevails over ancillary contracts absent clear novation. (Para 24 , 29 , 30 )
5. Petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 dismissed. (Para 42 )
6. Does Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 apply to foreign-seated international commercial arbitrations?
No. Part I of the Act, including Section 11, applies only where the place of arbitration is in India. Indian courts lack jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator for a foreign-seated arbitration, regardless of the parties' nationality or domicile. (Para 24 , 30 )
7. How is the conflict between an arbitration clause in a mother agreement and subsequent ancillary contracts resolved?
The arbitration clause of the mother agreement governs the dispute unless a later contract unequivocally replaces, substitutes, or novates it. Ancillary contracts facilitating discrete transactions do not override the dispute resolution framework of the principal agreement. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 )
8. When can the Group of Companies doctrine be used to bind a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement?
The doctrine is applied sparingly and requires compelling evidence of mutual intention to bind the non-signatory. Mere common shareholding, overlap of directors, or belonging to the same corporate group is insufficient to establish such intention. (Para 40 )
9. Can a party re-litigate the seat of arbitration in a Section 11 petition if a court has already decided it in a prior suit?
No. Findings regarding the operative agreement and the seat of arbitration are jurisdictional facts. Once adjudicated by a competent court, they create an issue estoppel, barring the parties from re-agitating those identical issues in subsequent proceedings. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 )
JUDGMENT
1. For the sake of convenience and ready reference, this judgment contains the following parts: -
| Table of Contents | |
| I. | Introduction |
| II. | Facts |
| (i) | Buyer and Seller Agreement between Petitioner and Respondent No.1 |
| (ii) | Execution of Sales Contracts with Respondent No. 2 |
| (iii) | Execution of the Addendum |
| (iv) | HSSAs executed between Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 |
| (v) | Respondent No.1’s invocation of Benin Arbitration |
| (vi) | Petitioner’s institution of Anti-Arbitration Injunction Suit |
| (vii) | Filing of the Present Petition |
| (viii) | Culmination of Benin Arbitration: |
| III. | Submissions |
| (i) | Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner |
| (ii) | Submissions on behalf of Respondent No. 1 |
| (iii) | Submissions on behalf of Respondent No. 2 |
| (iv) | Submissions on behalf of Respondent No. 3 |
| IV. | Analysis |
| (i) | Maintainability of the Section 11 (6) Petition in International Commercial Arbitration |
| (ii) | Inapplicability of Arbitration Clauses in Sales Contracts and HSSAs to dispute arising from BSA and Addendum |
| (iii) | No novation or supersession of BSA by Sales Contracts and HSSAs |
| (iv) | Initiation and Culmination of Benin Arbitration: |
| (v) | Dismissal of Anti-Arbitration Injunction by High Court of Delhi |
| (vi) | Findings of High Court of Delhi as ‘Issue Estoppel’ |
| (vii) | Misplaced reliance on Group of Companies Doctrine |
| V. | Conclusion and Decision |
I. Introduction:
2. The Arbitration Petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [Hereinafter, “Act, 1996”] is an attempt by the petitioner to anchor an international commercial arbitration, arising out of Buyer and Seller Agreement (BSA), and its Addendum which is governed by laws of Republic of Benin, into the domestic framework of the Act, 1996 by placing reliance on dispute resolution clauses contained in subsequent contractual arrangements, namely Sales Contracts executed with respondent no. 2 and High Seas Sales Contracts (HSSAs) executed with respondent no. 3. The prayer is for constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal and a composite reference of the alleged disputes including within the embrace the three respondents as its parties by invoking the group of companies doctrine. We have considered issue of jurisdiction, concluded decision between the parties, and also the propriety of the present petition and dismissed the petition. We have held that as the primary contract (BSA) incorporates (i) international commercial arbitration, question of application of Section 11 contained in Part I does not arise, (ii) BSA with respondent no. 1 is the “mother agreement’' to which respondents no. 2 and 3 are aliens, (iii) the petitioner is barred by issue estoppel arising owing to dismissal of anti-arbitration injunction suit and also that, (iv) there is no compositeness of the transaction so as to attract group of companies doctrine.
II. Facts:
3. The petitioner, Balaji Steel Trade, has approached this Court under Section 11 (6) read with Section 11 (12)(a) of the Act 1996 praying for appointment of sole arbitrator to adjudicate and decide upon dispute that has arisen between the parties owing to the alleged breach of Buyer and Seller Agreement (hereinafter, “BSA”) dated 06.06.2019 executed between the present petitioner and respondent no.1, Fludor Benin S.A. Petitioner prays for a composite reference to arbitration by seeking the inclusion of respondent no. 2, M/s Vink Corporations DMCC, a company incorporated in Dubai, UAE, and respondent no. 3, Tropical Industries International Pvt. Ltd., a private limited company registered in New Delhi, India. As per the petitioner, all three respondents are owned and controlled by Tropical General Investments Ltd. Group (“TGI Group”) whereby TGI Group holds 100% shares in respondent no.1, 51% shares in respondent no.
