Introduction
In a recent judgement concerning The Managing Director, Bihar
State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. & Anr. v. Sanjay
Kumar,1 the Supreme Court reiterated the scope of
judicial scrutiny under Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 while addressing the interplay between
arbitration agreements, statutory recovery proceedings, and
criminal prosecutions. Further, it restated principles on
arbitrability in cases involving allegations of fraud, ultimately
reinforcing the limited role of referral courts in arbitration
matters.
Facts of the Case
The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation entered into
agreements with rice millers for custom milling of paddy procured
under a scheme of the Food Corporation of India. The agreements
stipulated delivery of 67% rice from the supplied paddy and
contained an arbitration clause alongside a recovery mechanism
under the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914.
Within a
