Arbitrability of Fraud Claims: Supreme Court Clarifies Law on Section 11 Arbitration Petitions

The case of Rashid Raza v. Sadaf Akhtar revolved around a partnership dispute where allegations of fraud were raised, leading to both an FIR and a Section 11 arbitration petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Supreme Court had to determine whether the fraud allegations were serious enough to make the dispute non-arbitrable.

The Court ultimately ruled that the dispute was arbitrable as it involved “simple allegations of fraud” related to partnership matters and did not vitiate the entire contract. The judgment provides a clear distinction between arbitrable and non-arbitrable fraud allegations.

Background and Key Issues

The case originated when an FIR was lodged on November 17, 2017, against the appellant, alleging siphoning of funds and other financial improprieties within a partnership firm. The appellant then filed an arbitration petition before the High Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, seeking the appointment of an arbitrator as per the arbitration clause in the partnership deed dated January 30, 2015.

The High Court dismissed the arbitration petition, citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in A. Ayyasamy v. A. Paramasivam & Ors. [(2016) 10 SCC 386], which held that serious allegations of fraud could make a dispute non-arbitrable.

The key legal issues before the Supreme Court were:

• Were the fraud allegations serious enough to make the dispute non-arbitrable?
• Did the High Court correctly apply the principles of arbitrability under Section 11?
• Should the dispute be referred to arbitration or adjudicated by a civil court?

Arguments of the Petitioner (Rashid Raza)

• The allegations against him were related to financial transactions within the partnership firm and did not involve complex fraud that would vitiate the entire contract.
• Under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, the court’s role was limited to determining whether an arbitration agreement existed and whether the dispute fell within its scope.
• The High Court misinterpreted the ruling in A. Ayyasamy by treating all fraud allegations as grounds for rejecting arbitration.
• The FIR was under investigation and should not affect the arbitrability of a private partnership dispute.

Arguments of the Respondent (Sadaf Akhtar)

• The fraud allegations were serious and included siphoning of funds, which required extensive evidence and could not be properly adjudicated in arbitration.
• The High Court rightly relied on A. Ayyasamy, which held that matters involving complex fraud should be decided by civil courts.
• The arbitration clause should be disregarded as the entire partnership agreement was tainted by fraud.
• The presence of an FIR indicated criminal misconduct, which should not be resolved in a private arbitration forum.

Supreme Court’s Key Observations

1. Distinction Between Serious and Simple Fraud Allegations

“Mere allegation of fraud simplicitor may not be a ground to nullify the effect of an arbitration agreement. It is only in those cases where the allegations of fraud make a virtual case of a criminal offense or are so complex that they require voluminous evidence, that a civil court should adjudicate the matter.”

The Court reaffirmed that simple fraud allegations related to partnership affairs do not make a dispute non-arbitrable.

2. Principles of Arbitrability and Fraud

“Two working tests determine whether fraud allegations are arbitrable: (1) Does the plea permeate the entire contract, including the arbitration clause, rendering it void? (2) Do the allegations affect the internal affairs of the parties without implications in the public domain?”

Applying these tests, the Court found that the allegations in this case did not invalidate the arbitration clause and were private disputes within a partnership.

3. High Court’s Misapplication of A. Ayyasamy

“The High Court relied on paragraph 26 instead of paragraph 25 of A. Ayyasamy, which clearly distinguished between arbitrable and non-arbitrable fraud allegations.”

The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court had misinterpreted the law and wrongly dismissed the Section 11 petition.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and ruled that:

• The dispute was arbitrable as it involved “simple allegations of fraud” related to partnership finances.
• The High Court’s order was set aside.
• Justice Amareshwar Sahay, a retired judge of the Jharkhand High Court, was appointed as the sole arbitrator.
• The ongoing FIR investigation would not be affected by the arbitration proceedings.

Impact of the Judgment

• Clarifies Arbitrability of Fraud: Reinforces that not all fraud allegations make a dispute non-arbitrable.
• Limits Judicial Intervention: Confirms that courts should not interfere in arbitration unless fraud allegations invalidate the entire contract.
• Strengthens Arbitration in India: Encourages businesses to rely on arbitration for resolving private commercial disputes.
• Preserves FIR Investigations: Ensures that ongoing criminal investigations remain unaffected by parallel arbitration proceedings.

The Supreme Court’s decision strengthens arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism while ensuring that courts only intervene in cases involving serious and complex fraud.

Petitioner Name: Rashid Raza.
Respondent Name: Sadaf Akhtar.
Judgment By: Justice R.F. Nariman, Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Justice Surya Kant.
Place Of Incident: Jharkhand.
Judgment Date: 04-09-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Rashid Raza vs Sadaf Akhtar Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 04-09-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Arbitration Act
See all petitions in Dispute Resolution Mechanisms
See all petitions in Judgment by Rohinton Fali Nariman
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Subhash Reddy
See all petitions in Judgment by Surya Kant
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Arbitration and Alternate Dispute Resolution Category
See all allowed petitions in Arbitration and Alternate Dispute Resolution Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Arbitration and Alternate Dispute Resolution Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Arbitration and Alternate Dispute Resolution Category