Existence and validity and of an arbitration agreement, and arbitrability of the dispute can be examined in proceedings under Section 8 and Section 11 ACA. The court should interfere in limited cases where it is plainly arguable that the arbitration agreement is non-existent, invalid or the disputes non-arbitrable. (Supreme Court)

     Update by Editor

Vidya Drolia and others v. Durga Trading Corporation (Vidya Drolia II) Court: Supreme Court of India | Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 2402 of 2019 | Citation: 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1018 | Bench: NV Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna and Krishna Murari JJ | Date of decision: 14 December 2020 |

Continue reading
Categories: Appointment of arbitrator |  Arbitrability |  Boghara Polyfab principle |  Booz Allen principle |  Competence Competence |  Erga omnes effect |  Existence of arbitration agreement |  Formal validity of arbitration agreements |  In personam |  In rem |  Nonarbitrability |  Power to refer parties to arbitration |  Public policy |  Section 11 |  Section 16 |  Section 8 |  Substantive validity |  Test of arbitrability |  Validity  

Only serious allegations of fraud are not arbitrable. Serious allegations arise only if either of the two tests laid down in Ayyasamy—explained in Rashid Raza case and further described in this case-are satisfied.

     Update by Prashant Mishra

Avitel Post Studioz Limited and others v. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius Limited) and HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius Limited) v. Avitel Post Studioz Limited and others Court: Supreme Court of India | Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 5145 of 2016 and Civil Appeal No. 5158 of 2016 | Citation: 2020 SCC

Continue reading
Categories: Arbitrability |  Arbitrability of fraud |  Nonarbitrability  

Civil courts have the power to grant an anti-arbitration injunction, but sparingly, and in line with principles outlined in paragraph 24 of Modi Entertainment Network

     Update by Simran Patel

Balasore Alloys Limited v. Medima LLC Court: Bombay High Court | Case Number: CS No. 59 of 2020 (Ad-interim order)| Citation: Not currently available | Judge: Shekhar B Saraf J | Date: 12 August 2020 | Available at: Bombay High Court’s website Disagreeing with Rajiv Sahai Endlaw J’s decision in

Continue reading
Categories: Anti-arbitration injunction  |  Arbitrability |  Competence Competence |  Kompetenz-kompetenz |  Nonarbitrability |  Section 16 |  Who decides question?  

A suit for an anti-arbitration injunction on the ground that the arbitrator does not have jurisdiction is not maintainable given the Supreme Court’s decision in Kvaerner Cementation India Limited v. Bajranglal Agarwal (2012) 5 SCC 215. It is a matter for the arbitrator to decide. (Delhi High Court) (currently before a division bench in appeal)

     Updates by Editor

Dr Bina Modi v. Lalit Modi and others, CS(OS) 84/2020 Delhi High Court; single-judge bench, Rajiv Sahai Endlaw J.; Decided on 3 March 2020   A. PREFACE: SEEKING ANTI-ARBITRATION INJUNCTION ON THE GROUND THAT DISPUTE IS NOT ARBITRABLE–RELYING ON VIMAL KISHOR SHAH AND VIDYA DROLIA CASE. The question before the High

Continue reading
Categories: Anti-arbitration injunction  |  Arbitrability |  Competence Competence |  Kompetenz-kompetenz |  Nonarbitrability |  Section 16 |  Who decides question?