Disputes Between The Parties After Compromise Is Not Arbitrable: Supreme Court

Must Read

An Insight into Custodial Death in India

“The occurrence of Custodial deaths in the world’s greatest democracy has raised the eyebrows of every citizen and shaken...

Implications in Travel Insurance in Light of the COVID-19 Crisis

As the world, today is crippled by this once in a century pandemic and as of date more than...

Second-Round Effects of Rent Control Laws: The Argentine Case

Introduction In colonial India, a city had an issue with its cobra population, which was a problem clearly in need...

Why Are the Big Techs of Silicon Valley Accused of Anti-Competitive Behaviours?

The big tech giants of the Silicon Valley are facing major challenges with relation to their monopolistic powers after...

KSK announces Sanjay Kumar as a Partner for Pharma & Life Sciences Practice

New Partner for KSK's Pharma & Life Sciences Practice King Stubb & Kasiva recently announced that Mr Sanjay Kumar has...

The Debate Between IPR and Competition Law Explained

There are various market processes or structures that govern market scenario. For simplicity, this paper focuses on two mechanisms:...

Follow us


Supreme Court of India cleared the law on arbitrability of the disputes after a compromise recently by declaring that disputes arisen between the parties after entering into a compromise deed are not arbitral in absence of an arbitration clause in the compromise deed.

Case Name

Zenith Drugs and Allied Agencies Pvt. Ltd. v. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. (Full Case Document is here)

Facts And Issues

Parties had entered into an agreement, which allowed the Appellant to be appointed as clearing and forwarding agent for M/s Rhone Poulene India Limited (RPIL). This agreement had a valid arbitration clause. While the agreement was continuing and subsisting, RPIL merged into the Respondent Company and ceased to exist. Due to this merger, Appellant’s agreement with RPIL was terminated. Appellant to stop the termination filed a Title suit in the trial court. Parties after plenty of negotiation reached a compromise and compromise deed was drafted. According to this compromise deed, Respondent paid Rs.23.50,000/- to the Appellant and appointed it as its stockiest for their products in two cities. Thereafter, new disputes arose between the parties and both sides brought legal action against each other. Respondent invoked arbitration and applied for the appointment of an arbitrator under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Trial Court dismissed this application. Respondent appealed against this order in the High Court, where the parties were referred to arbitration. Aggrieved by this outcome, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of India. Following two issues came up for consideration before the Supreme Court:

  • Whether High Court erred in sending the matter to arbitration just because Appellant admitted the existence of Arbitration Clause?
  • Could the Appellant argue that the Arbitration Clause does not hit Compromise Deed?

Arguments Advanced

Counsel for the Appellant submitted that dispute could only be tried by a civil court and High Court erred in not considering the fact that Respondent had challenged the Compromise Deed because of fraud and inducement.

Counsel for Respondent argued the matter on two fronts first one being that Appellant admitted the existence of arbitration clause and was seeking compensation because of illegal termination of clearing and forwarding agent, which continues to be arbitrable. The second one was that the Appellant through fraud and inducement obtained Compromise Deed.

Decision Of The Case

Division Bench of Supreme Court consisting of Justice R. Bhanumati and Justice AS Bopanna after listening to both the sides and examining the evidence tendered came to the conclusion that dispute which arose between the parties after compromise deed was not arbitrable because original agreement between the parties was substituted by the compromise deed which was clear after examining the compromise deed. The Supreme Court bench also clarified that High Court erred in sending the parties for arbitration just because Appellant admitted the existence of arbitration clause. Furthermore, Bench observed that Respondent had challenged the compromise deed because of fraud and inducement such allegation could only be tried before a civil court and parties under no circumstances could be referred to arbitration.

Siding with the Appellant Supreme Court set aside the order passed by High Court sending the parties to the arbitration and restored the matter before Senior Civil Judge for the matter to have proceeded in accordance with Law.

Author’s Opinion

It should be appreciated that the Supreme Court took notice of the fact that the language of compromise deed substituted the original agreement between the parties. This observation automatically cleared that disputes will be arbitrable only if a valid clause exists in the compromise deed.


Check out our coverage of the latest Supreme Court decisions as well as the High Court Decisions


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Allows Export of Pending Consignment of Onions in Respect of Which Shipping Bills Have Been Generated Before Notification of the Ban

A writ petition challenging the notification dated 14th September 2020 to ban the export of onions was filed by the Exporters Association before the...

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -