In Brief
The Supreme Court upheld the referral of a real-estate dispute to arbitration. Sushma Daga and her son appealed against orders referring their suit to arbitration, arguing the dispute was non-arbitrable because there was no arbitration clause in the Conveyance Deed and because suits for property cancellation are actions in rem. The Court held that: (1) arbitration clauses in the underlying Tripartite Agreements covered the dispute; (2) suits for document cancellation are actions in personam, not rem, and are arbitrable; (3) unsubstantiated fraud allegations cannot oust arbitration jurisdiction; and (4) judicial scrutiny under Section 8 is limited to confirming prima facie valid arbitration agreements exist. The appeal was dismissed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.