Breaking SUPREME COURT CRACKS DOWN ON HOME LOAN SUBVENTION FRAUD: CBI PROBE EXPEDITED, 30-DAY SANCTION DEADLINE FOR BANK OFFICIALS
New Delhi · Monday, 10 August 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2018-05-02 allowed

Purushottam S/o. Tulsiram Badwaik vs Anil & Ors

Bench: 2 — Uday Umesh Lalit

In Brief

A partnership agreement dated 2005, entered after the 1996 Arbitration Act came into force, contained a clause referring disputes to arbitration "in accordance with the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act, 1940." When the respondents filed a suit, the appellant invoked Section 8 of the 1996 Act to refer the dispute to arbitration. The trial court and High Court rejected this, holding that the reference to the defunct 1940 Act invalidated the entire arbitration clause. The Supreme Court held that an arbitration agreement is valid if it meets the Section 7 requirements (parties' agreement to arbitrate, in writing), regardless of any incorrect reference to the old Act. Since no proceedings commenced before 1996, the 1996 Act governs. The Court set aside the High Court judgment and allowed the appeal, directing arbitration under the 1996 Act.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Arbitration Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Arbitration Clause Dispute Resolution Section 8 Application

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login