2020 (3) ADR 232

Supreme Court Of India

(From: Delhi)

Hon'ble Judge(s): Abhay Manohar Sapre, Indu Malhotra , JJ

(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act (26 of 1996) , S.8(2), S.7(4)(c)— Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.115— Reference to arbitration - Law of estoppel - Plea of absence of arbitration agreement - MTNL after giving its consent to refer disputes to arbitration before High Court is estopped from contending absence of written agreement to refer parties to arbitration. In this case, MTNL raised a preliminary objection that there was no arbitration agreement in writing between the parties, at this stage of the proceedings. The agreement between MTNL and Canara Bank to refer the disputes to arbitration is evidenced from the following documents exchanged between the parties, and the proceedings : (I) The Minutes of the Meeting convened by the Cabinet Secretariat, wherein all three parties were present and participated in the proceedings. The Committee on Disputes, in the Meeting expressed the view that all the three parties should take recourse to arbitration in view of the different inter-liked transactions between them. Canara Bank suggested that to expedite the arbitration, it should be conducted under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This was accepted by MTNL, and no objection was raised. (ii) Pursuant to the proceedings conducted by the Cabinet Secretariat, Canara Bank addressed letters to MTNL, wherein it enclosed a draft Arbitration Agreements, wherei....