Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996, Section 7(5), 11(6) – Appointment of arbitrator – Challenge as to – Present case is a ‘two-contract’ case and not a ‘single contract’ case – Clause 7.0 of the L.O.I. which also forms part of the agreement specifically provides that the redressal of the dispute between the NBCC and the respondent shall only be through civil courts having jurisdiction of Delhi alone – Clause 7.0 of the L.O.I. specifically uses the word “only” before the words “be through civil courts having jurisdiction of Delhi alone” – When there is a reference in the second contract to the terms and conditions of the first contract, the arbitration clause would not ipso facto be applicable to the second contract unless there is a specific mention/reference thereto – Present case is not a case of ‘incorporation’ but a case of ‘reference’ – As such, a general reference would not have the effect of incorporating the arbitration clause – In any case, Clause 7.0 of the L.O.I., which is also a part of the agreement, makes it amply clear that the redressal of the dispute between the NBCC and the respondent has to be only through civil courts having jurisdiction of Delhi alone – Held that the learned single judge of the Delhi High Court erred in allowing the application of the respondent – Impugned orders liable to be quashed and set aside. (Para 16, 21 to 24)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2024 STPL(Web) 178 SC
[2024 INSC 218]
Nbcc (India) Limited Vs. Zillion Infraprojects Pvt.Ltd.
Civil Appeal Nos. 4417-4418 of 2024 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.7573-7574 of 2021]-Decided on 19-03-2024
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/2024-STPLWeb-178-SC.pdf
