Leaving a conflict unresolved is like leaving a story unfinished. PrivateCourt writes the ending, transforming disputes into tales of RESOLUTION!

Private Court Symbol
The International Court of ARBITRATION


Got any

Write to us


Share this page

Supreme Court's Ruling: High Courts' Authority in Appointing Arbitrators and Preliminary Inquiries

The Indian legal landscape witnessed a significant development when the Supreme Court of India rendered a crucial verdict in the case of Emaar India v. Tarun Aggarwal. The apex court addressed the contentious issue of whether High Courts, while appointing arbitrators, can conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether the dispute falls within the 'excepted matters' as stipulated in the agreement between the disputing parties. Additionally, the court clarified that the insertion of sub-section 11(6A) does not restrict the Court from conducting such an inquiry to decide the issue of non-arbitrability. This landmark judgment has far-reaching implications for arbitration proceedings and is set to reshape the landscape of arbitration law in India.
Background of the Case

The case of Emaar India v. Tarun Aggarwal revolves around a dispute between a real estate developer, Emaar India, and a homebuyer, Tarun Aggarwal. The parties had entered into an agreement containing an arbitration clause to resolve any disputes arising between them. However, when a disagreement arose concerning certain matters, Tarun Aggarwal approached the High Court seeking the appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute.

At this juncture, the High Court faced a crucial question: should it undertake a preliminary inquiry to determine whether the subject matter of the dispute fell within the 'excepted matters' explicitly mentioned in the arbitration agreement? The 'excepted matters' refer to issues that are specifically excluded from the purview of arbitration and must be adjudicated by a court of law. This conundrum led the High Court to refer the matter to the Supreme Court for a definitive ruling.

Ruling of the Court

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court pronounced that High Courts indeed have the authority to undertake a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether the dispute falls within the 'excepted matters' outlined in the arbitration agreement. This means that before appointing an arbitrator, the High Court can examine the scope of the arbitration clause to determine if certain disputes should be excluded from arbitration and instead be resolved through traditional court proceedings.

The court further emphasized that the introduction of sub-section 11(6A) in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not preclude the High Court from conducting such a preliminary inquiry. Sub-section 11(6A) was inserted to expedite the process of appointing an arbitrator, mandating the court to confine its examination to the existence of an arbitration agreement. However, the Supreme Court clarified that this amendment does not restrict the Court's power to delve into the issue of non-arbitrability during the preliminary inquiry.

Key points from the court's ruling:

High Courts can conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether the dispute falls within the 'excepted matters' outlined in the arbitration agreement.

The insertion of sub-section 11(6A) does not hinder the Court from undertaking such an inquiry.

The scope of the preliminary inquiry is limited to determining the arbitrability of the dispute, not delving into the merits of the case.

Implications and Significance

The ruling in Emaar India v. Tarun Aggarwal holds tremendous significance and will likely have broad-ranging implications on the landscape of arbitration law in India. Some of the noteworthy implications are as follows:

  • Enhanced Clarity: By empowering High Courts to conduct preliminary inquiries into the 'excepted matters,' the judgment brings much-needed clarity to the process of appointing arbitrators. This enables the courts to discern which disputes are eligible for arbitration and which must be adjudicated through traditional court proceedings.
  • Efficiency in Arbitration Proceedings: The Court's decision provides a mechanism to avoid potential delays and disputes that may arise during arbitration proceedings when parties contest the arbitrability of specific issues. By resolving this matter at the preliminary stage, the overall efficiency of arbitration is likely to improve.
  • Protection of Party Autonomy: The judgment upholds the principle of party autonomy in arbitration. It recognizes that parties, through their agreement, can determine the scope of disputes they wish to submit to arbitration and those they want to exclude. This reinforces the significance of carefully drafted arbitration clauses and encourages parties to be explicit in outlining the scope of arbitrable matters.
  • Minimization of Judicial Interference: By empowering High Courts to decide on non-arbitrability issues at the outset, the judgment limits unnecessary judicial interference in arbitration proceedings. This is essential to maintain the confidentiality and autonomy of arbitration as a preferred method of dispute resolution.
  • Consistency in Approach: The ruling is expected to bring about consistency in the approach of High Courts across the country when dealing with preliminary inquiries in appointing arbitrators. This is likely to lead to more predictable outcomes and greater confidence in the Indian arbitration regime.
  • Encouragement to Arbitration: The judgment's emphasis on resolving arbitrability issues through a preliminary inquiry is likely to instill greater confidence in arbitration as a viable dispute resolution mechanism. Parties may feel reassured that their disputes will be heard by competent arbitrators, thereby promoting the use of arbitration in commercial contracts.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Emaar India v. Tarun Aggarwal marks a defining moment in Indian arbitration law. By allowing High Courts to undertake a preliminary inquiry to determine whether the dispute falls within the 'excepted matters' specified in the arbitration agreement, the court strikes a delicate balance between party autonomy and judicial intervention.

The decision's emphasis on conducting a preliminary inquiry despite the insertion of sub-section 11(6A) reflects the court's commitment to ensuring that parties' intentions, as manifested in the arbitration agreement, are respected and upheld. This approach is expected to streamline the appointment of arbitrators and foster efficiency in arbitration proceedings.

The ruling's implications extend far beyond the parties directly involved in the case. It is poised to have a transformative effect on arbitration proceedings across the country. With increased clarity, efficiency, and protection of party autonomy, the Indian arbitration regime is set to become more robust and attractive to commercial entities seeking a reliable alternative to traditional court litigation.


Emaar India v. Tarun Aggarwal