Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Arbitration Dispute Over Incorporation of Arbitration Clause by Reference. Clause 14 of Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements Clearly Intended to Incorporate Entire Development Agreement Including Arbitration Clause.

  • 28
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Supreme Court allowed appeals against a Bombay High Court order that had dismissed applications under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator. The appellant, a proprietary concern in real estate, had entered into a Development Agreement on 20.12.2011 with Respondents, which contained an arbitration clause (Clause 36). Subsequently, the appellant entered into separate Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements with the society and its members, including the five respondents. These later agreements contained Clause 14, which stated that all terms and conditions of the Development Agreement shall be construed to form part of the later agreements and all clauses thereof shall be binding on the parties. When disputes arose, the appellant invoked the arbitration clause, but the respondents refused, leading to Section 11 applications before the High Court. The High Court held that there was no arbitration agreement between the appellant and the respondent members, as the arbitration clause was only in the Development Agreement and not in the later agreements, and mere reference was insufficient under Section 7(5) of the Arbitration Act. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that Clause 14 clearly indicated an intention to incorporate the entire Development Agreement, including the arbitration clause, into the later agreements. The court relied on the precedent in M.R. Engineers and Contractors Private Limited vs. Som Datt Builders Limited, which distinguished between mere reference and incorporation. The court found that the language in Clause 14 was not a mere reference but an express incorporation of all terms and conditions of the Development Agreement. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, allowed the appeals, and appointed Mr. Vishal Kanade as the sole arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the appellant and the respondent members, directing him to make a declaration under Section 12 of the Arbitration Act within fifteen days.

Headnote

A) Arbitration Law - Incorporation of Arbitration Clause by Reference - Section 7(5) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The court examined whether a clause in later agreements stating that all terms and conditions of an earlier Development Agreement shall form part of the later agreements and be binding on the parties is sufficient to incorporate the arbitration clause from the earlier agreement. Held that such clear language indicates an intention to incorporate the entire earlier document, including the arbitration clause, into the later agreements (Paras 8-12).

B) Arbitration Law - Distinction Between Mere Reference and Incorporation - Section 7(5) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The court distinguished between a mere reference to another document and an incorporation of that document in entirety. Relying on M.R. Engineers and Contractors Private Limited vs. Som Datt Builders Limited, the court held that where the later contract states that all terms and conditions of the earlier document shall form part of the contract, the arbitration clause in the earlier document gets incorporated (Paras 9-11).

C) Arbitration Law - Appointment of Arbitrator - Section 11 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The court set aside the High Court's order dismissing Section 11 applications and appointed a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes between the appellant and respondent members, holding that an arbitration agreement existed by incorporation (Paras 13).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether an arbitration clause contained in a Development Agreement is incorporated into subsequent Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements by virtue of a clause stating that all terms and conditions of the Development Agreement shall form part of the later agreements.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's common order dated 26.06.2025, and appointed Mr. Vishal Kanade as the Sole Arbitrator to resolve disputes between the appellant and the respondent members. The learned Arbitrator shall make his declaration under Section 12 of the Arbitration Act within fifteen days from receipt of a copy of the order and shall be entitled to fees as per the Fourth Schedule.

Law Points

  • Incorporation of arbitration clause by reference
  • Section 7(5) Arbitration and Conciliation Act
  • 1996
  • Clear intention to incorporate entire document
  • Distinction between mere reference and incorporation
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (SC) (05) 27

Civil Appeal Nos. of 2026 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 38407-38411 of 2025)

2026-05-13

SANJAY KUMAR J. , K. VINOD CHANDRAN J.

2026 INSC 484

Hirani Developers

Nehru Nagar Samruddhi CHS Ltd. and another Etc.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeals against High Court order dismissing Section 11 applications for appointment of arbitrator.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Filing Reason

Dispute arose between appellant and respondent members regarding redevelopment; appellant invoked arbitration clause but respondents refused.

Previous Decisions

High Court of Bombay by common order dated 26.06.2025 dismissed the Section 11 applications, holding no arbitration agreement existed between the parties.

Issues

Whether the arbitration clause in the Development Agreement was incorporated into the Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements by virtue of Clause 14. Whether the High Court erred in its application of Section 7(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that Clause 14 of the later agreements clearly incorporated all terms of the Development Agreement, including the arbitration clause. Respondents contended that the arbitration clause was not specifically mentioned in the later agreements and mere reference was insufficient to bind them individually.

Ratio Decidendi

Where a later contract expressly states that all terms and conditions of an earlier document shall form part of the later contract and be binding on the parties, the arbitration clause contained in the earlier document is incorporated into the later contract by reference under Section 7(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, provided the reference clearly indicates an intention to incorporate the entire document.

Judgment Excerpts

Clause 14: 'It is clarified that all the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement dated 04/07/2012 shall be construed to form a part of these presents and all the clauses of the same shall be binding on the parties hereto.' This was, thus, not a case of mere reference to an earlier agreement but a case where the parties to the later contract clearly intended to import the Development Agreement, body and soul, into the later agreements.

Procedural History

Appellant filed five Section 11 applications before the Bombay High Court seeking appointment of arbitrator. High Court dismissed them by common order dated 26.06.2025. Appellant appealed to Supreme Court by special leave petitions (SLP (C) Nos. 38407-38411 of 2025). Supreme Court granted leave and heard the appeals.

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 7, Section 7(5), Section 11, Section 12, Section 21
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Arbitration Dispute Over Incorporation of Arbitration Clause by Reference. Clause 14 of Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements Clearly Intended to Incorporate Entire Development Agreement Including Arbitration Cla...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Enhanced Compensation in Motor Accident Claim — Ex Gratia Payment Not Deductible. High Court's award of Rs. 48,00,000 with 7.5% interest held just; no interference required.