Back
SHEKHAR B. SARAF
Blue Star Limited – Appellant
Versus
Rahul Saraf – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Shekhar B. Saraf, J.) :
1. An interesting issue has fallen before this court with respect to the three petitions before me, which are A.P. 854 of 2022, A.P. 853 of 2022 and A.P. 852 of 2022. Since, the issue is identical in these petitions they are being decided together in this judgement. The petitions are applications under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for appointment of an arbitrator on the basis of clauses, which are identical in the three agreements.
2. The issue would require venturing into an endeavour to ascertain the ingredients/requirements of a binding arbitration clause and later to decide whether these ingredients are present or found wanting in the identical agreements in the instant petitions.
Relevant Facts
3. Since the issue and the clauses are identical, only the pertinent facts and clauses of A.P. 852 of 2022 are produced herein below :
Arbitration agreement – Mere mentioning of terms ‘arbitration’ or ‘arbitrator’ in heading or existence of these terms in scattered manner in clauses of agreements between parties do not aggregate to ....
Appointment of Arbitrator – Arbitration agreement is foundation of arbitration – Referral Court before appointing Arbitral Tribunal will have to be prima facie satisfied that arbitration agreement as....
The use of 'may' in arbitration agreements indicates optionality rather than obligation, requiring mutual consent for arbitration to be valid.
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
