Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Clause Referring to Non-Existent Arbitration Rules
SEBI and Corporate Laws,  130 SCL 11 (Mag.)
Posted: 15 May 2015
Date Written: January 2, 2015
In a recent decision in Pricol Ltd. v. Johnson Controls Enterprises Ltd. & Ors. [Arbitration Case (Civil No. 30 of 2014) dated 16 December 2014], the Supreme Court of India addressed a pathological arbitration clause and referred the parties to arbitration by virtually re-drafting the clause. Although the parties agreed in their arbitration clause for arbitration under the Singapore Chamber of Commerce, the Singapore Chamber of Commerce was not an arbitral institution having Rules for appointment of arbitrators. The Supreme Court held that the most reasonable construction of the said clause was that the reference was actually to the Singapore International Arbitration Centre. This decision reflects a pro-arbitration approach that has been the feature of arbitration in India since 2012. This short paper analyses the decision.
Keywords: Pathological Arbitration Clauses, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Indian Arbitration, Arbitration Agreement, Singapore International Arbitration Centre, SIAC
JEL Classification: K10, K12, K19, K30, K40
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation