MOTILAL OSWAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED versus SANTOSH CORDEIRO AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2026] 1 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 05-01-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 1 S.C.R. 1 : 2026 INSC 5
Motilal Oswal Financial Services Limited 
v. 
Santosh Cordeiro and Another 
(Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2026)
05 January 2026
[J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court has rightly allowed the application filed by 
the respondent u/s.11, Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.
Headnotes†
Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.11(6A) – Presidency 
Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 – s.41 – Single Judge allowed 
the s.11, A&C Act application filed by the respondent seeking 
appointment of a sole arbitrator in accordance with clause 
33 of the arbitration agreement of the Leave and License 
Agreement, and appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate the 
dispute between the parties – Appellant took objection that 
the dispute is non-arbitrable in view of s.41, 1882 Act – 
Raised the ground of non-arbitrability u/s.41,1882 Act before 
the arbitrator and filed a s.16 application under the A&C Act 
before the arbitrator – Dismissed by arbitrator – Whether the 
High Court had rightly allowed the application filed by the 
respondent u/s.11, A&C Act:
Held: Leave and License agreement in Clause 33 contained an 
Arbitration clause – Paragraph 40 of the Full Bench judgment of 
the Bombay High Court in Central Warehousing relied on by the 
appellant cannot be understood on the facts of the present case 
to mean that Clause 33 of the Leave and License Agreement 
containing the arbitration clause has ceased to exist – An 
examination u/s.11(6-A) indicates that there exists an arbitration 
agreement between the parties – Furthermore, s.41 is a provision 
conferring jurisdiction on the Small Causes Court for certain types 
of disputes and cannot be interpreted to mean that ex proprio vigore 
(by its own force), it neutralizes arbitration clauses in agreements – 
Conferment of jurisdiction on a specific court or creation of a public 
* Author
2
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
forum, may not be the decisive test to answer and decide whether 
arbitrability is impliedly barred – Since, the Arbitrator has taken a 
decision on the s.16 application thus, parties have to work out their 
remedies in accordance with law – As and when such remedies 
are resorted to, they will be decided uninfluenced by any of the 
observations made herein – All questions between the parties 
other than the one answered herein based on s.11(6-A), A&C Act 
are left open. [Paras 14, 17, 21, 23, 27]
Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.11(6A) – Presidency 
Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 – Appellant relied on the 
Full Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Central 
Warehousing which inter alia held that the Arbitration 
Agreement in the situation referred therein would be invalid 
and inoperative on the principle that it would be against public 
policy to allow the parties to contract out of the exclusive 
jurisdiction of Small Causes Court by virtue of s.41 of the Act 
of 1882 – Appellant submitted that in view of this holding, even 
while examining within the contours of s.11(6-A) this Court will 
be obliged to conclude that no arbitration agreement existed:
Held: Submission not countenanced, reasons stated – Paragraph 
40 of Central Warehousing cannot be understood on the facts 
of the present case to mean that Clause 33 of the Leave and 
License Agreement has ceased to exist – The judgement in Central 
Warehousing is dealt with only to decipher whether on account 
of the said judgement, Clause 33 of the Leave and License 
Agreement in the present case, containing the arbitration clause 
is non-existent – It is not – An examination u/s.11(6-A) indicates 
that there exists an arbitration agreement between the parties – An 
appeal is pending in this Court against the judgement in Central 
Warehousing – That appeal may be decided on its own merits – This 
Court is not to be taken to have pronounced on the correctness of 
Central Warehousing one way or the other. [Paras 21, 23]
Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.11(6-A) – Presidency 
Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 – s.41:
Held: Leave and License agreement in Clause 33 contained an 
Arbitration clause – In a proceeding u/s.11, A&C Act, the Court 
is to confine the examination to the existence of an Arbitration 
Agreement  – s.11(6-A) which was brought into force w.e.f 
23.10.2015, though omitted by Act 33 of 2019, the omission has 
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 
3
Motilal Oswal Financial Services Limited v.  
Santosh Cordeiro and Another
not yet been

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.