M/S Bansal Builders v. State Of Haryana And Others
!" # $ % % & '( )*+ ,
!
"
# $%
&
!
"
# $% '
(
!
"
# $%
-&
."/ - !
0 1 0 !
$ *
#
-- .
*/*!
"
1 0 ! + ! 2 34& 1# #
+23
#%
*
,
-#
# 5 , + ,*
5
' 1#
,
#
,
, *66& # *7 #, 7
. #%
9 1#
.
.
- - # - :
23 $
* !2( 1# .
5 .
- *&1#.
" , 3%
#.
5
" $'**2.
3% #" (
,# - #% "*.# ,#.
,
$**2
''1# % "3 #.
5
.
3
" # %
'' % #% "
.
.
+ $
,
-3 #3
4 #%
*
#, -
%
%2
3 1#%
,
#,
6.
.
. (61# ;
.)
!"
#
$ #
%%!
'
& '
& #
&( & 1# %
+
6
,
# <=,
+ <- * # 3 .
8, > 1#
,
9.
+
*
.
*#, #%
( ?
#%
#,
* #,
> +" *
#
,
3 #<=,
+ <- 2 2,# - #.
5 > ?
,# -
# % " 3% .
" ,
''* # % "3 .
#
" # +
969* ;
.
3
6
,
#,
6.
3 %23
#
=#
# 3 "
" %%
,# - # <=,
+<- 2 2,# - #.
5 #,
## -# * #,
''1#3,# 3 %2
"
#<=,
+<- 2 2,# - #.
5.
6 3 +" 1# %3
9
# 8. At the outset, we need to state that this Court's jurisdiction to adjudicate issues at the preappointment stage has been the subject matter of numerous cases before this Court as well as High Courts. The initial interpretation provided by this Court to examine issues extensively, was recognized as being against the pro arbitration stance envisaged by the 1996 Act. Case by case, Courts restricted themselves in occupying the space provided for the arbitrators, in line with party autonomy that has been reiterated by this Court in Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation , (2021) 2 SCC 1, which clearly expounds that Courts had very limited jurisdiction under Section 11(6)of the Act. Courts are to take a 'prima facie' view, as explained therein, on issues relating to existence of the arbitration agreement.
Usually, issues of arbitrability/validity are matters to be adjudicated upon by arbitrators. The only narrow exception carved out was that Courts could adjudicate to 'cut the deadwood'. Ultimately the Court held that the watch word for the Courts is 'when in doubt, do refer'."
* #
3%
+ +
,
3 "5
%
%2
1# 3
,
# .
%
6* #3 " %2
.
1#,
# %"
'
3 9
, # 3
, # +
* %
-
%%
* "*
%" % , # , , 51 0 ! !
% '( )*+ , @# #% -
A @# #%
A