Arbitration in Trust Disputes: Supreme Court Rules Against Private Arbitration

The case of Vimal Kishor Shah & Others v. Jayesh Dinesh Shah & Others involved a dispute concerning the applicability of arbitration in matters relating to trust and trust deeds. The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated August 17, 2016, analyzed whether disputes arising between trustees and beneficiaries under a trust deed could be resolved through arbitration. This case clarified a significant point in arbitration law by holding that arbitration clauses in trust deeds do not constitute a valid arbitration agreement under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The judgment set a precedent by confirming that disputes related to trusts should be resolved under the Trusts Act through civil courts, and arbitration is not a valid mechanism for resolving such disputes.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose from a family trust created by Shri Dwarkadas Laxmichand Modi on April 6, 1983. The trust, known as the “Deed of Kaydee Family Trust,” was set up for the benefit of six minor beneficiaries. Two individuals were appointed as managing trustees to oversee the affairs of the trust.

The trust deed contained an arbitration clause (Clause 20), which stated that any dispute regarding the interpretation of the trust deed, disagreements between trustees and beneficiaries, or disputes among the beneficiaries themselves should be resolved through arbitration. However, conflicts arose among the beneficiaries over the management of the trust and the allocation of its assets, leading to legal notices and demands for arbitration.

Legal Proceedings

Since the parties could not settle their disputes amicably, some of the beneficiaries (respondents) filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in the Bombay High Court, seeking the appointment of an arbitrator as per the trust deed.

The appellants opposed the application on several grounds, including:

• The trust deed was not a contract between parties but a unilateral document executed by the settlor.
• The beneficiaries and trustees had not signed the trust deed, meaning they were not “parties” to an arbitration agreement as required by Section 7 of the Arbitration Act.
• The Indian Trusts Act, 1882, provided sufficient legal remedies for trust disputes, making arbitration unnecessary.

The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of arbitration, holding that since the beneficiaries had accepted benefits under the trust, they were bound by its terms, including the arbitration clause.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court overruled the Bombay High Court’s decision and held that:

• The trust deed did not constitute a valid arbitration agreement under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
• Trust disputes cannot be resolved through arbitration as the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, provided a statutory framework for resolving such matters.
• Only civil courts have jurisdiction over trust-related disputes, and arbitration cannot be used as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism.

Key Observations by the Supreme Court

The court emphasized the following principles:

“Clause 20 in the Trust Deed, which provides for settlement of disputes/differences arising between the beneficiaries of the Trust, does not constitute an arbitration agreement inter se beneficiaries within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act.”

The court further noted:

“In order to constitute a valid, binding, and enforceable arbitration agreement, the requirements contained in Section 7 have to be satisfied strictly. These requirements include: (1) an agreement, (2) in writing, (3) signed by the parties, and (4) containing an arbitration clause.”

Since the trust deed was a unilateral document executed by the settlor, and not an agreement between parties, the arbitration clause could not be enforced.

Exclusion of Arbitration in Trust Disputes

The court examined whether arbitration was an appropriate mechanism for resolving trust-related disputes. It referred to the principle that certain disputes are inherently non-arbitrable, including those related to:

• Criminal offenses
• Matrimonial disputes
• Guardianship matters
• Insolvency and winding-up proceedings
• Tenancy disputes under rent control laws

The court added trust disputes to this list, stating:

“The disputes relating to Trust, trustees, and beneficiaries arising out of the Trust Deed and the Trust Act are not capable of being decided by an arbitrator despite the existence of an arbitration agreement.”

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Bombay High Court’s ruling and declaring that arbitration was not a valid mechanism for resolving trust disputes. It clarified that such disputes should be addressed through the civil courts under the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

• Trust disputes are non-arbitrable, meaning they cannot be resolved through arbitration.
• The existence of an arbitration clause in a trust deed does not constitute a binding arbitration agreement.
• The Indian Trusts Act, 1882, provides sufficient legal remedies for trust-related disputes.
• Civil courts have exclusive jurisdiction over trust disputes.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for trust law and arbitration in India:

• It establishes that arbitration clauses in trust deeds are not enforceable.
• It clarifies the scope of arbitration law, reinforcing that certain matters must be adjudicated by civil courts.
• It ensures that trust-related disputes follow the statutory framework of the Indian Trusts Act.

By affirming that trust disputes fall outside the purview of arbitration, the Supreme Court has strengthened the role of civil courts in handling such matters, thereby ensuring that the legal framework governing trusts remains intact.

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

Download Judgment: Vimal Kishor Shah & vs Jayesh Dinesh Shah & Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 17-08-2016-1741878409718.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Arbitration Awards
See all petitions in Judgment by J. Chelameswar
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay Manohar Sapre
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2016
See all petitions in 2016 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