India: SC: Scope Of Interference Of Courts While Appointing Arbitrators Limited To Determining Existence Of Arbitration Agreement

Last Updated: 16 November 2017
Article by Ajay Bhargava, Jeevan Ballav Panda and Shalini Sati Prasad

Most Read Contributor in India, August 2019

On 10 October 2017, the Supreme Court of India in the matter of Duro Felguera, S.A. v. Gangavaram Port Limited has upheld the legislative policy and purpose to minimize the Court's intervention at the stage of appointing an arbitrator, on an application initiated post 2015 amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (1996 Act) in terms of Section 11 (6A) of the 1996 Act. In supersession of the legal position prevalent prior to the 2015 Amendment, the only issue that the Courts exercising powers while appointing arbitrators need to assess is whether an arbitration agreement exists – 'nothing more, nothing less'.


In this matter, Gangavaram Port Limited (GPL) had awarded tender work for Bulk Material Handling Systems of its sea port to Duro Felguera, S.A. (Duro) and its subsidiary Felguera Gruas India Private Limited (FGL). The original contract was divided into five different packages/contracts bearing different works. Out of the five contracts, one was entered with Duro and the rest of the four were entered with FGL, all dated 10 May 2012. Each contract had its own arbitration clause. Duro had issued a corporate guarantee dated 17 March 2012 to GPL guaranteeing due performance of all the works awarded to Duro and FGL. The corporate guarantee had an independent arbitration clause. Subsequently, a tripartite MoU was entered on 11 August 2012 between the parties to carry on works under five contracts as per the priority of documents listed therein to give clarity in carrying out the works.

Disputes arose between the parties and arbitration clause was subsequently invoked by the parties. Duro issued an arbitration notice under its separate contract with GPL. FGL issued four separate arbitration notices under the four contracts entered between FGL and GPL, both nominating the common nominee arbitrator for each of their contracts. GPL issued a comprehensive arbitration notice under the MoU dated 11 August 2012 for resolving the disputes through 'International Commercial Arbitration' and nominated its arbitrator for a composite reference.

Consequently, Duro filed an application under Section 11(6)(a) read with Section 11(12)(a) of the 1996 Act to appoint the nominee arbitrator on behalf of GPL with respect to its contract with GPL. FGL also filed four separate proceedings for appointment of domestic arbitral tribunals for resolving the dispute pertaining to the four contracts awarded to it by GPL. GPL had filed a separate application to appoint a single arbitral tribunal under the MoU dated 11 August 2012 for a composite reference for adjudication of all the disputes between the parties.

The Supreme Court was posed with two main issues for determination, being:

  1. Whether a 'Composite Reference' be made under MoU dated 11 August 2012, as contended by GPL? and
  2. Whether there is a need to constitute 'multiple arbitral tribunals' for each of the five different contracts and a separate 'international commercial arbitration' arbitral tribunal for corporate guarantee given by Duro?

The following contentions were raised by Duro and FGL:

  1. By conscious agreement of the parties, the original tender was superseded by five new and separate contracts prescribing different works, each of which have separate special conditions as well as general conditions of contract;
  2. The corporate guarantee executed by Duro guaranteeing due performance of the works awarded to Duro and FGL has its own separate and distinct arbitration clause and the same has no connection with the arbitration clauses contained in the five separate contracts;
  3. MoU dated 11 August 2012 which enlists priority of the documents is only to have clarity in carrying out the works and the MoU cannot override the terms of the five separate contracts;
  4. There cannot be a composite reference as the five separate contracts were independent and separate in their content and subject matter involved;
  5. The corporate guarantee executed by Duro prescribed for international commercial arbitration, which should be adhered to;
  6. FGL was not a party to the corporate guarantee executed by Duro;
  7. MoU dated 11 August 2012 did not contain any arbitration clause and was executed after the execution of the other contracts. The MoU did not intend to alter the nature of the rights, responsibilities and obligations of the parties arising from the separate contracts; and
  8. For settling the disputes arising under the separate contracts awarded to FGL, there should be four domestic arbitral tribunals and not a 'composite reference' by invoking MoU.

The contentions raised by GPL were:

  1. The split up of the "Works" into five separate contracts was done only on the basis of the requests made by the Duro for convenience of the contractors;
  2. The Works under separate contracts were inter- connected and inter-linked;
  3. The appointment of a single arbitral tribunal will avoid conflicting awards between the parties, wastage of time, resources and expenses and would be consistent with law and public policy;
  4. The arbitration clause under the conditions of contract, which forms part of the tender document (also incorporated by reference in the MoU) shall prevail over the arbitration clause under five separate contracts;
  5. It would be just and proper for a composite reference to be made to a single arbitral tribunal of international commercial arbitration as the same would be consistent with intention of parties and public policy; and
  6. 'Works' has always been envisaged as one composite contract by the parties though the contracts were split into packages.


Justice R. Banumathi delivered the detailed judgment and a separate concurring judgment was passed by Justice Kurian Joseph. The petitions filed by Duro and FGL were allowed and the petition filed by GPL stood disposed of. It was held that, post amendment, the courts have been left with the limited scope to decide whether there exists a valid arbitration agreement between the parties.

In the circumstances of the present case, the Supreme Court held that the five contracts as well as the corporate guarantee given by Duro and FGL separately with GPL had separate arbitration agreements and they do not depend on the terms and conditions of the original package and are independent of the MoU dated 11 August 2012. The Supreme Court relying upon the judgment in the case of M.R. Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. v. Som Datt Builders Ltd.1 held that for incorporation by reference for the purpose of Section 7(5) of the 1996 Act, the parties must have the intention to incorporate the arbitration clause by special reference so as to make it applicable. A general reference to another contract will not be sufficient to incorporate the arbitration clause from the referred contract into the contract under consideration. The MoU dated 11 August 2012 did not have an arbitration agreement of its own and there was no incorporation of the arbitration clause from the other contracts by reference.

It was held that since Duro is a foreign company, for its one separate package/ contract and corporate guarantee with GPL, international commercial arbitral tribunals were to be constituted. With respect to the four separate agreements between FGL and GPL, separate domestic arbitral tribunals were to be constituted albeit comprising of the same members as part of such arbitral tribunals.

The Supreme Court opined that the legislative intent is to essentially minimise the Court's intervention at the stage of appointing the arbitrator. The Court further held that while the arbitrators can be the same, there has to be different tribunals constituted to respect the mandate of Section 11(6A) of the 1996 Act.


This judgment of the Supreme Court upholds the legislative policy and purpose, which is essentially to minimize the Court's intervention in arbitration proceedings. This intention has been incorporated in Section 11(6A) of the 2015 Amendment which has further reduced Court's intervention in exercise of its powers at the stage of appointing the arbitrator(s) to the extent of determining the existence of an arbitration agreement. There has been a significant transition in the position of law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Konkan Railway Corporation Limited & Ors. v. Mehul Construction Company2 and Konkan Railway Corporation Limited & Anr. v. Rani Construction Private Limited3 that exercise of powers of the Court was mere administrative function to the overruling of the said judgments in SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Limited & Anr4 to hold that it is a judicial power and not merely an administrative power. Subsequently, the judgment of National Insurance Company Limited v. Boghara Polyfab Private Limited5 further clarified the position as upheld in S.B.P. Case by identifying the specific categories of issues which were within the domain and jurisdiction of the Court while exercising such powers under Section 11 of the 1996 Act. This position has now been completely narrowed down under the 2015 Amendment with the insertion of Section 11(6A).

The power of the Court is now only limited to the issue of determination of existence of arbitration agreement, thereby implying that all other issues (whether preliminary or otherwise) have been left exclusively for adjudication by the arbitral tribunal. In other words, the Court while hearing an application under Section 11 of the 1996 Act is required to only consider whether there exists a valid arbitration agreement between the parties in dispute. The provisions of the 2015 Amendment would be applicable to proceedings which have commenced on or after 23 October 2015 (date on which the Arbitration and Conciliation Ordinance, 2015 was promulgated and from which date subsequently the 2015 Amendment was given retrospective effect).

Therefore, proceedings which have commenced prior to 23 October 2015 would continue to be governed by the legal position as it existed prior to the 2015 Amendment. Therefore, for such proceedings which commenced prior to 23 October 2015, culminating into application under Section 11 of the 1996 Act, the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the S.B.P. Case and clarified in National Insurance Case would continue to hold good and the present judgment may not be applicable. The recent trend of the Supreme Court taking a pro-active approach in interpreting the provisions of the much deliberated 2015 Amendment and settling the legal position, is definitely a positive step to emphasise Judiciary's support towards the legislative policy of minimal Court's interference in arbitration proceedings and promote it as a preferred mode of dispute resolution.


[1](2009) 7 SCC 696

[2](2000) 7 SCC 201

[3](2002) 2 SCC 388

[4](2005) 8 SCC 618

[5](2009) 1 SCC 267

The content of this document do not necessarily reflect the views/position of Khaitan & Co but remain solely those of the author(s). For any further queries or follow up please contact Khaitan & Co at

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Link Legal India Law Services
In association with
Practice Guides
by Mondaq Advice Centres
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Link Legal India Law Services
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions