4. Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. v.

Northern Coal Field Ltd

The Supreme Court held that the issue of limitation would be decided by an arbitrator based on
the doctrine of kompetenz-kompetenz established in Section 16 of the Arbitration & Conciliation
Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) and the legislative intent to restrict judicial intervention at pre-
reference stage.

Additionally, it underlined that the Arbitration Act’s legislative objective is for parties to be
autonomous and for court intrusion in the arbitration process to be kept to a minimum. It was
noted that after an arbitrator has been chosen, all disputes and objections must
be resolved by the arbitrator in accordance with the
Arbitration Act’s rules.

According to the Supreme Court, the question of limitation is a jurisdictional one that should be
resolved by the arbitrator in accordance with Section 16 of the Arbitration Act, not the High
Court at the pre- reference stage as provided for in Section 11 of the Arbitration Act.

The Supreme Court pointed out that the arbitrator should resolve all disputes, including those
involving jurisdiction, once the arbitration agreement is not in question.

6. Srividya Krishna v. Lakshmi Mukilan, O.P No. 279 of 2018.

Facts of the Case:

The petitioner and the respondent formed a partnership firm named "Events Fest" on 25.10.2013,
primarily engaged in event management. The partnership was dissolved on 31.12.2017, and a
dissolution deed was executed on the same date. Following the dissolution, the respondent sent a
legal notice on 08.01.2018, demanding a sum of Rs. 50, 00,000/- from the petitioner, which was
replied to by the petitioner on 20.01.2018. The petitioner claims differences and incompatibility
between them, which led to the dissolution of the partnership. Post-dissolution, the respondent
issued notices, including one on 13.02.2018, seeking complete audited accounts, and the
petitioner responded appropriately. The petitioner filed an original petition seeking the
appointment of an arbitrator for disputes arising from the dissolved partnership.

Judgment:

The Partnership Deed, dated 25.10.2013, includes Clause 19, which refers to an Arbitration
Clause for resolving disputes relating to the business of the firm. The clause allows for
arbitration if parties fail to agree on an arbitrator. The petitioner claimed various losses,
including defamation, undue pressure, mental agony, and loss of goodwill, quantified as of
01.03.2018.

The jurisdiction clause in the partnership deed pertains to arbitration, but the court argues that it
must be broadly drafted to cover both contractual and non-contractual disputes. The court notes
that claims for defamation are not arbitral, and even though the jurisdiction clause mentions "any
dispute," it may not cover tort claims. The court concludes that matters related to contract, or its
breach should be referred to arbitration, but claims based on tort, like defamation, fall outside the
arbitration clause. The partnership deed did not specifically address issues of due diligence or
negligence, and the court emphasizes that claims of compensation for defamation are distinct
from contractual disputes. Therefore, the court dismisses the petition, stating that the claim for
defamation does not fall within the purview of the arbitration clause, and asked both the parties
to bear their own costs.

7. Dr. Sunil Shenvi V. State of Karnataka and Another, Crl. P. No. 10265 of 2023,
Interim Order of Stay granted vide Order dated 30/10/2023 by the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka. Status-Pending