In Brief
Duro Felguera (Spanish company) and its Indian subsidiary FGI contracted with Gangavaram Port Limited to execute bulk material handling works initially tendered as a single package but subsequently split into five separate contracts with independent arbitration clauses. When disputes arose, GPL sought to consolidate all five contracts plus a corporate guarantee into one international commercial arbitration citing an MoU referencing the original package and the guarantee covering all works. The Supreme Court held that Section 11(6A) of the amended Arbitration Act (2015) limits court review to existence of arbitration agreements. As six distinct agreements existed—each with its own arbitration clause—six separate tribunals were required: two for international commercial arbitration (covering the Spanish company's package and guarantee) and four for domestic arbitration (for the Indian subsidiary's packages). Mere reference to the original tender in the MoU was insufficient to merge the separate contracts.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.