Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration For A Pathological Arbitration Clause

The Supreme Court:

• reasonably and meaningfully construes a pathological arbitration clause, ensuring that the arbitral process is not derailed;
• acknowledges that the Court cannot question the appointment of a sole arbitrator by the SIAC Chairman and the partial award passed by the sole arbitrator on the issue of jurisdiction in proceedings under Section 11(6) of the Act;
• sends out a strong pro-arbitration signal;

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India ("Court"), in the case of Pricol Limited ("Pricol") v. Johnson Controls Enterprise Ltd. ("Johnson") & Ors.¹ once again demonstrated its pro-arbitration approach by reasonably and meaningfully construing a pathological arbitration agreement. Further, the Court held that (a) appointment of a sole arbitrator by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre ("SIAC"); and (b) a partial award having being passed by the arbitral tribunal on the issue of jurisdiction; cannot be examined in a petition