OFFICE FOR ALTERNATIVE ARCHITECTURE versus IRCON INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES LTD.

Citation: [2025] 6 S.C.R. 395 · Decided: 12-05-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 6 S.C.R. 395 : 2025 INSC 665
Office for Alternative Architecture
v.
IRCON Infrastructure and Services Ltd.
(Civil Appeal No. 6620 of 2025)
13 May 2025
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether while exercising power u/s.11 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court has to confine its consideration as
to the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties;
If so, whether it would be permissible, while exercising jurisdiction
u/s.11, to hold that some of the claims raised are non-arbitrable
or fall within excepted category.
Headnotes†
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.11 – In a nutshell,
the case of the appellant, inter alia, is that while exercising
power u/s.11 of the 1996 Act, the Court has to only examine
whether the arbitration agreement exists or not and if it exists,
an Arbitrator is to be appointed who, thereafter, would decide
whether the claims fall within the excepted category or not –
Correctness:
Held: Sub-section (6A) of s.11, which was inserted by Act 3
of 2016, with effect from 23.10.2015, makes it clear that while
considering an application under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5)
or sub-section (6), the Supreme Court or the High Court, as the
case may be, shall, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order
of any Court, confine to the examination of the existence of an
arbitration agreement – Act 33 of 2019 omitted sub-section (6A) but
the amending Act has not been notified thus far – In consequence,
sub-section (6A) of s.11 of the 1996 Act remains in the statute
book – The High Court fell in error in bisecting the claim of the
appellant into two parts, one arbitrable and the other not arbitrable,
when it found arbitration agreement to be there for settlement
* Author
396
[2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
of disputes between the parties – The correct course for the
High Court was to leave it open to the party to raise the issue of
non-arbitrability of certain claims before the arbitral tribunal, which,
if raised, could be considered and decided by it. [Paras 7, 8, 12]
Case Law Cited
In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Indian Stamp
Act, 1899 [2023] 15 SCR 1081 : 2023 INSC 1066; SBI General
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning [2024] 7 SCR 840 : 2024
INSC 532 – relied on.
Emaar India Limited v. Tarun Aggarwal Projects LLP and Anr.
[2022] 13 SCR 933 : (2023) 13 SCC 661 – referred to.
List of Acts
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
List of Keywords
Arbitral Tribunal; Exclusion of claims; Non-arbitrable claims;
Existence of arbitration agreement; Appointment of an arbitrator;
Bisecting claim.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6620
of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.09.2023 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in ARBP No. 1425 of 2022
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Talwant Singh, Sr. Adv., B.S. Jakhar, Vikram Singh Jakhar,
Ms. Bhawna Jakhar, Neeraj Jakhar, Viraj Rathee, Ms. Anshu
Devar, Nihar Dagar, Ms. Shruti Datta, Ms. Varnika Sharma, Vishul
Dabas, Sparsh Karnwal, Sriram P.
Advs. for the Respondent:
M/s. Kmnp Law, Abir Phukan, V. Shyamohan, Ms. Rishika
Radhakrishnan.
[2025] 6 S.C.R.
397
Office for Alternative Architecture v.
IRCON Infrastructure and Services Ltd.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Manoj Misra, J.
1.
Leave granted.
2.
This appeal impugns the judgment and order of the High Court of
Delhi at New Delhi1 dated 06.09.2023 whereby, while appointing
an arbitral tribunal in exercise of power under Section 112 of the
1
The High Court
2
11. Appointment of arbitrators.
(1) A person of any nationality may be an arbitrator, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.
(2) Subject to sub-section (6), the parties are free to agree on a procedure for appointing the arbitrator
or arbitrators.
(3) Failing any agreement referred to in sub-section (2), in an arbitration with three arbitrators, each party
shall appoint one arbitrator, and the two appointed arbitrators shall appoint the third arbitrator who shall
act as the presiding arbitrator.
(3A) [The Supreme Court and the High Court shall have the power to designate, arbitral institutions, from
time to time, which have been graded by the Council under section 43-I, for the purposes of this Act:
Provided that in respect of those High Court jurisdictions, where no graded a

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