India: Supreme Court Settles Position On The Arbitrability Of Disputes Where Fraud Is Alleged

Delivering a pro-arbitration judgment, the division bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (SC) comprising of Justices A K Sikri and Dr D Y Chandrachud, in the case of A Ayyasamy v A Paramasivam & Ors1 through a judgment dated 4 October 2016, has held that unless the fraud in question is of a serious and complicated nature, the jurisdiction of the arbitrator would not be ousted. Mere allegations of fraud simplicitor would not take away from the arbitrability of a dispute where a valid arbitration agreement was in existence.

Facts of the Case

The parties to the proceedings were brothers and partners in a partnership firm carrying on the business of running a hotel. Certain disputes relating to the business arose between the parties. In spite of the partnership deed containing an arbitration clause, the respondents filed a civil suit against one of the partners (the appellant) before the local District Court seeking a declaration that they, as partners, were entitled to participate in the administration of the hotel and sought a permanent injunction against the appellant from interfering with the same right. The appellant moved an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) raising an objection to the maintainability of the civil suit on the ground that the partnership deed contained an arbitration clause and thus it was mandatory for the disputes to be referred to arbitration.

The application was opposed by the respondents on the ground that acts of fraud were attributable to the appellant and hence the dispute could not be adjudicated by the arbitral tribunal. The fraud alleged, related to siphoning of certain funds of the partnership firm by the appellant. The respondents relied on the judgement of the SC in the N. Radhakrishnan case2. The appellant argued that the said judgment was per incuriam of the law subsequently laid down by the SC in the Swiss Timing case3. The District Court dismissed the Section 8 application relying on N. Radhakrishnan. The appellant filed a revision petition before the High Court (HC) where the same issue was agitated. The HC relied on the order in the N. Radhakrishnan case and dismissed the petition. The appellant, thereafter filed the present appeal before the SC.


The issue before the SC was whether the mere allegation of fraud by one party against the other would be sufficient to exclude the subject matter of the dispute from arbitration. The SC also decided if the view taken by the HC to rely on N. Radhakrishnan in light of the decision in the Swiss Timing Case was correct or not.


Justice A K Sikri, on behalf of the Division Bench began with the observation that the Act itself did not contain any specific provision excluding any category of disputes by terming them to be non-arbitrable. The SC observed that, in light of various pronouncements relating to the scope of judicial intervention, unless it was shown that there was a law which makes the subject matter of the dispute incapable of being settled by arbitration – the principle of least interference by courts should be followed while deciding on the arbitrability of the disputes. The SC went on to differentiate between cases where the allegations of fraud were of a serious and complicated nature that would not only constitute a criminal offence but also require extensive evidence and cases where fraud was merely alleged by one party against the other.

The judgment in Booz Allen4 and the 246th Law Commission Report were referred to by Justice Sikri on behalf of the Division Bench while discussing whether the present dispute was capable of adjudication and settlement by arbitration. The order in Booz Allen held that only where the subject matter of the dispute fell exclusively within the domain of courts, could the dispute said to be non-arbitrable. In general, , a right in rem would not be arbitrable but a right in personam would be capable of adjudication in private fora. The SC in Booz Allen and more recently in Vimal Kishor Shah5 have outlined the following instances which would be outside the purview of arbitration:

  • disputes relating to rights and liabilities which give rise to or arise out of criminal offences;
  • matrimonial disputes;
  • guardianship matters;
  • insolvency and winding up;
  • testamentary matters;
  • eviction or tenancy matters; and
  • disputes interse between trust, trustees, and beneficiaries.

According to Justice Sikri, the Law Commission Report has recognised and has drawn a distinction between serious allegations of fraud and fraud simplicitor and therefore it followed that only serious allegations of fraud are to be treated as non-arbitrable which should be decided by civil courts.

Justice Dr D Y Chandrachud, while agreeing with the view taken by Justice A K Sikri, discussed how the parties, while relying on the judgment passed in N. Radhakrishnan, have sought to avoid arbitration by raising a frivolous allegation of fraud. Additionally, Justice Dr D Y Chandrachud also cited that the doctrine of severability of the arbitration clause from the main contract is an important element which would lead credence to the view that adjudicatory power of the arbitrator remained unaffected for considering if the main contract was affected by fraud or undue influence. He further went on to hold that burden of proof that the disputes were not capable of adjudication by arbitration would lie on the party which was avoiding the same. A further principle which should assist the court when a defence of fraud is raised to oppose arbitration, was laid down, which was that it would always be easier for parties to expressly state that disputes regarding the validity of the contract would not be adjudicated by arbitration and in the absence of the same, the intent of the parties to refer disputes to arbitration should be respected.


The SC held that mere allegation of fraud simplicitor would not be a ground to nullify the effect of an arbitration agreement between the parties. Only in those cases where the courts, while dealing with Section 8 of the Act, find that there are very serious allegations of fraud which make a clear case of criminal offence or where allegations of fraud are so complicated that it becomes absolutely essential that such complex issues can be decided only by a civil court on the appreciation of the voluminous evidence, should the court avoid the arbitration agreement by dismissing a Section 8 application and proceed with trying the suit on merits. The SC held that the allegations in this case were not so serious that an arbitrator would be unable to rule on it and directed the parties to arbitration. To save the time of parties, the SC also appointed an arbitrator for the present dispute.


By virtue of this judgment, the SC has certainly settled the controversy over the arbitrability of fraud and further laid to rest the dispute regarding the applicability of the principle brought out by the Swiss Timing case over the judgment passed in N. Radhakrishnan. The judgment also guides on the approach to be followed by the court while deciding an application under Section 8 of the Act where the defence of fraud is raised. Further, while discussing international jurisprudence on the subject of arbitrability, it states that in keeping with other common law jurisdictions, India should evolve towards strengthening the institutional efficacy of arbitration. The judgment is a departure from the principle of arbitrability of fraud when it comes to foreign seated arbitration vis-à-vis domestic arbitration where the SC6 has held that in the case of arbitrations covered by New York Convention, the Court can decline to make a reference only if it comes to the conclusion that the arbitration agreement is null and void and not on the ground of fraud.

While this judgment is a welcome step and in the right direction, however it would still leave the determination regarding the seriousness of the fraud to the subjective adjudication of the court. Therefore not only would fraud be required to be specifically pleaded, the fraud pleaded would necessarily require to be of a serious and grave nature.


1. Civil Appeal Nos 8245 & 8246 of 2016

2. N Radhakrishnan case v Maestro Engineers & Ors (2010) 1 SCC 72 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that questions of fraud cannot be referred to arbitration and should be tried by a civil court

3. Swiss Timing Ltd v Commonwealth Games 2010 Organising Committee (2014) 6 SCC 677 where in an application under Section 11 of the Act, the SC has held that allegations of fraud can be arbitrated upon and the policy of least interference by civil courts should be applied when deciding on the arbitrability of the disputes.

4. Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc v SBI Home Finance Limited & Ors (2011) 5 SCC 532

5. Shri Vimal Kishor Shah and Ors v Mr. Jayesh Dinesh Shah and Ors. Civil Appeal no 8164 of 2016

6. World Sport Group (Mauritius) Ltd v MSM Satellite (Singapore) Pte Ltd 2014 (11) SCC 639

The content of this document do not necessarily reflect the views/position of Khaitan & Co but remain solely those of the author(s). For any further queries or follow up please contact Khaitan & Co at

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Vaish Associates Advocates
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Vaish Associates Advocates
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions