Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.81 seconds)Section 8 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 5 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Vidya Drolia vs Durga Trading Corporation on 14 December, 2020
62. The issue as to "who decides arbitrability ?" fell for consideration before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading
Corpn.14. The decision on the aforesaid issue was summed up under
various sub-paragraphs of paragraph 154 of the said reports wherein it was
held that the scope of judicial review and jurisdiction of the Court under
Section 8 and 11 of the Arbitration Act is identical but extremely limited and
restricted. It was further held that the arbitral tribunal is the preferred first
14
(2021) 2 SCC 1
Page 18 of 22
2026:CHC-AS:256
authority to determine and decide all questions of non-arbitrability and the
Court has been conferred power of second look on aspects of non-
arbitrability post the award in terms of sub-clauses (i),(ii) or (iv) of Section
34(2)(a) or sub-clause (i) of Section 34(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act. It was
further held that rarely as a demurer the Court may interfere at Section 8 or
11 stage when it is manifestly and ex facie certain that the arbitration
agreement is non-existent, invalid or the disputes are non-arbitrable,
though the nature and facet of non-arbitrability would to some extent,
determine the level and nature of the judicial scrutiny. The restricted and
limited review is to check and protect parties form being forced to arbitrate
when the matter is demonstrably "non-arbitrable" and to cut off the
deadwood. The Court by default would refer the matter when contentions
relating to non-arbitrability are plainly arguable; when consideration in
summary proceedings would be insufficient and inconclusive; when facts
are contested; when the party opposing arbitration adopts delaying tactics
or impairs conduct of arbitration proceedings. It was further held that this is
not the stage for the Court to enter into mini trial or elaborate review so as
to usurp the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal but to afirm and uphold the
integrity and efficacy of arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution
mechanism.