Acts and Sections Discussed

1. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

   • Section 11(6) and Section 11(12) - Jurisdiction for appointing an arbitrator.
   • Section 11(6-A) - Limits court intervention to the examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement.

2. Case Law

   • Khardah Company Ltd. v. Raymon & Co (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1810 - Discusses assignability of contract rights and obligations.
   • DLF Power Ltd. v. Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd., 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 5069 - Addresses assignability of arbitration agreements with the main contract.

1. Petitioner’s Jurisdiction Invocation

• Facts: The petitioner, a U.S.-incorporated company, invokes jurisdiction under Sections 11(6) and 11(12) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking an arbitrator appointment to address disputes under agreements from December 2009 and February 2010.
• Key Point: Jurisdictional invocation under the Arbitration Act for dispute resolution through arbitration.

2. Background of the Petitioner’s Acquisition

• Facts: The petitioner purchased Cryobank International, Inc.'s assets in a public auction based on a decree by the Circuit Court of Florida on June 8, 2010, effectively claiming Cryobank’s intellectual property rights.
• Key Point: The petitioner asserts standing by stepping into Cryobank’s rights.

3. Basis of the Dispute

• Facts: The petitioner claims disputes arise from the License Agreement with Cryobanks India (now Cryoviva Biotech) and the Share Subscription Agreement involving RJ Corp and its shareholders.
• Key Point: Petitioner asserts rights based on agreements that include arbitration clauses.

4. Arbitration Demand and Respondents’ Stand

• Facts: Following unmet demands, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause in September 2017. The respondents argue the license agreement was non-assignable and reject the petitioner as assignee due to no privity of contract.
• Key Point: Dispute centers around whether petitioner can enforce the contract terms without respondents’ consent.

5. Court’s Scope in Arbitration Appointment

• Facts: The Court’s role under Section 11(6-A) is limited to determining the existence of an arbitration agreement and refrains from delving into the petitioner’s rights as assignee.
• Key Point: Limited judicial examination at the arbitrator appointment stage.

6. Precedents Cited for Contract Assignability

• Facts: Khardah Company established that obligations can’t be assigned without consent, while rights can be assigned if not personal. DLF Power Ltd. affirms that arbitration agreements can be assignable with the main contract.
• Key Point: Court acknowledges these precedents but decides the arbitrator should consider their application.

7. Referral to Delhi International Arbitration Centre

• Order: The Court appoints the Delhi International Arbitration Centre to nominate a sole arbitrator for the matter, reserving all claims and defenses for tribunal consideration.
• Key Point: Court-appointed arbitration without prejudice to parties’ claims on assignability and privity.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court’s decision reaffirms the limited role under Section 11(6-A) of the Arbitration Act, emphasizing that the presence of an arbitration agreement suffices for appointment without adjudicating complex issues, such as contract assignability and privity, which are left for the arbitrator’s evaluation.