Repeal and savings

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

1. Shin-etsu Chemical Co. LTD vs Aksh Optifibre Ltd.

   Supreme Court of India 12 Aug 2005 Binding (SC)

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   Under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when a judicial authority is seized of an action in a matter where parties have made an arbitration agreement, and an objection is raised that the agreement is null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed, the judicial authority must make a final determination on the merits of such objection - not merely a prima facie finding - before referring the parties to arbitration. The mandatory language 'shall' combined with 'unless' conditions, the distinction between Sections 8 and 45, the legislative scheme protecting parties from wasteful international arbitration proceedings on invalid agreements, the precedent interpretation of the analogous Section 3 of the Foreign Awards Act 1961, and the economic realities of international commercial arbitration, all indicate that full adjudication on merits (not prima facie determination) is constitutionally required at the Section 45 referral stage.

   On this section: Repeal of prior arbitration statutes; referenced to show consolidation of domestic and international arbitration regime under single 1996 Act.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.