Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
J. B. PARDIWALA, K. V. VISWANATHAN
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
BCL Secure Premises Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
K.V. VISWANATHAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the judgment and order dated 07.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Comm. Arbitration Application No. 125/2025. By the said order, the learned Single Judge allowed the Section 11(4)-Application filed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the “A&C Act) of the respondent-BCL Secure Premises Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “BCL”) and appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes and differences between the parties herein. Aggrieved, the appellant-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (for short ‘Corporation’) is in appeal.
3. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows.
4. The appellant-Corporation floated a tender for design, supply, installation, integration, testing, commissioning and post-commissioning warranty support services of Tank Truck Locking System (for short the “TTLS”).
5. The tender conditions had a specific clause s
(1) Appointment of Arbitrator – Referral Court should be prima facie satisfied that there exists arbitration agreement and as to whether non-signatory is a veritable party.
(2) Mere legal or comme....
Appointment of Arbitrator – Arbitral Tribunal is preferred first authority to look into questions of arbitrability and jurisdiction, and courts at referral stage should not venture into contested que....
The court reinforced the principle that arbitration agreements must be enforced and that jurisdictional issues regarding non-signatories should be resolved by arbitral tribunals, aligning with preced....
The arbitration agreement binds all parties, including non-signatories, and disputes must be referred to arbitration despite objections on limitation and jurisdiction.
The main legal principle established is the limited scope of the referral Court's jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Act, emphasizing the Court's role in conducting a prima facie examination of ....
The court's authority under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act restricts to determining the existence of an arbitration agreement, deferring substantive disputes to the arbitrator.
The Court's jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act is limited to examining the existence and validity of an arbitration agreement, and the Court may reject claims that are manifestly non-ar....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article