Summary
While declining interference with the impugned decision on the case’s facts, the Court clarified the limited inquiry under Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration Act. The 2015 amendment confined appointment-stage examination to the existence of an arbitration agreement and displaced the earlier approach permitting determination of accord and satisfaction. United India Insurance v. Antique Art Exports was overruled, although the appeal itself was dismissed.
Issues
- Whether Section 11(6A) permitted appointment-stage determination of accord and satisfaction.
- Whether Antique Art Exports correctly interpreted the amended inquiry.
Provisions considered
- Section 11(6A), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996The operative provision confined the Court to examining existence of an arbitration agreement in the narrow sense explained in Duro Felguera. (¶¶ 5, 9, 10, 11)
Held
- The pre-2015 approach allowing preliminary adjudication of issues such as accord and satisfaction was legislatively displaced. Such issues were not part of the limited existence inquiry prescribed by Section 11(6A). (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10)
- The proposed omission in the 2019 amendment had not yet been brought into force. Its institutional-appointment purpose did not revive the broader pre-2015 judicial inquiry. (¶ 6)
- Antique Art Exports did not lay down the correct law and was overruled. That correction did not alter the Court’s fact-specific decision to decline Article 136 interference in this appeal. (¶¶ 3, 10, 11)
Result
The appeal was dismissed. The trial court’s status quo order was extended for one week to enable the appellant to pursue other proceedings.