Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Clause in Lease Agreement Dispute

The case of Shinhan Bank vs. Carol Info Services Limited revolves around an arbitration dispute related to a lease agreement between the parties. The Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether an arbitration clause embedded in an ‘Amenities Agreement’ was binding for disputes arising from a ‘Leave and License Agreement.’ This ruling clarifies the principles of contract interpretation and arbitration applicability.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose between Shinhan Bank (Petitioner) and Carol Info Services Limited (Respondent) regarding a commercial lease agreement for office premises in Wockhardt Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai. The primary contention was whether disputes related to the lease agreement could be resolved through arbitration, as the lease agreement itself did not explicitly contain an arbitration clause.

Key events leading to the dispute:

August 5, 2011: The petitioner entered into a Leave and License Agreement and a separate Amenities Agreement with the respondent for the use of office premises.
July 1, 2016: Upon the expiry of the initial agreement, a new Leave and License Agreement was executed for two more years.
August 25, 2016: The petitioner also entered into a new Amenities Agreement.
March 22, 2017: The petitioner issued a notice of termination, effective from July 1, 2017.
March 30, 2017: The respondent refused to refund the security deposit and challenged the termination.
June 13, 2017: The petitioner vacated the premises and handed over possession.
July 3, 2017: The petitioner demanded a refund of security deposits, which was denied.
July 13, 2017: The respondent raised claims for unpaid license fees and damages, offsetting the security deposit.
October 9, 2017: The petitioner invoked arbitration, but the respondent denied the existence of an arbitration agreement.
March 13, 2023: The Supreme Court ruled on the matter, upholding the arbitration clause.

Issues Raised in the Case

The dispute primarily revolved around two legal questions:

1. Does the Arbitration Clause in the Amenities Agreement Extend to the Leave and License Agreement?

The petitioner contended that since the Amenities Agreement contained an arbitration clause, it should apply to disputes under the Leave and License Agreement, as both agreements were executed together.

2. Was the Respondent Justified in Denying the Arbitration Claim?

The respondent argued that since the Leave and License Agreement did not independently contain an arbitration clause, the claim for arbitration should be rejected.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Shinhan Bank)

The petitioner presented the following arguments:

The Leave and License Agreement and the Amenities Agreement were executed contemporaneously and should be read as a single contract.
Clause 1 of the Amenities Agreement stated that it should be considered an “integral part” of the Leave and License Agreement.
Since the Amenities Agreement contained an arbitration clause, all disputes arising from both agreements should be subject to arbitration.
The respondent’s refusal to refund the security deposit violated the terms of both agreements.

Arguments by the Respondent (Carol Info Services Limited)

The respondent defended its position with the following arguments:

The Leave and License Agreement did not contain an arbitration clause, meaning disputes under it could not be referred to arbitration.
Merely referring to another contract does not automatically incorporate all its clauses, including arbitration.
The respondent had filed a civil suit for outstanding license fees, which the petitioner should contest in court instead of seeking arbitration.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that the arbitration clause in the Amenities Agreement applied to disputes under the Leave and License Agreement.

1. The Agreements Must Be Read Together

The Court emphasized that the two agreements were not independent but rather formed part of a composite transaction:

“The provision of this Agreement shall be deemed to be and shall constitute an integral part of the said Leave and License Agreement in respect of the License of the Licensed Premise.”

2. Incorporation of Arbitration Clause

The Court cited M R Engineers and Contractors Private Limited vs. Som Datt Builders Limited, stating that when a document expressly incorporates another agreement’s provisions, arbitration clauses are also binding.

“If a contract states that another document forms part and parcel of the contract, all provisions of that document, including the arbitration clause, become binding.”

3. Section 7(5) of the Arbitration Act Applies

The Court ruled that Section 7(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which governs arbitration agreements incorporated by reference, was applicable:

“Section 7(5) stipulates that a reference in a contract to a document containing an arbitration clause constitutes an arbitration agreement if the reference makes the clause a part of the contract.”

4. No Need to Relegate the Petitioner to Civil Courts

The Court rejected the argument that the petitioner should contest the dispute in civil court, affirming the validity of arbitration:

“In view of the clear terms of the contract, a reference to arbitration is necessitated.”

Final Ruling

The Supreme Court:

Allowed the arbitration petition.
Appointed a sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute.
Directed the parties to proceed with arbitration in Mumbai.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for commercial contracts and arbitration:

1. Strengthening Arbitration in Lease Disputes

The judgment ensures that arbitration clauses in ancillary agreements apply to the main contract.
Prevents parties from evading arbitration by arguing that the primary agreement lacks an explicit arbitration clause.

2. Importance of Expressly Incorporating Arbitration Clauses

Drafting contracts with clear references to arbitration clauses ensures enforceability.
Companies should explicitly state arbitration applicability in all related agreements.

3. Reducing Burden on Civil Courts

The ruling reinforces the principle that commercial disputes should be resolved through arbitration rather than prolonged litigation.
Provides clarity on when arbitration clauses in ancillary agreements bind parties to arbitration.

Conclusion

This judgment strengthens arbitration law by ensuring that related agreements with arbitration clauses are read together. The ruling provides clarity for businesses entering lease agreements, ensuring that disputes are efficiently resolved through arbitration rather than traditional litigation.

Petitioner Name: Shinhan Bank.
Respondent Name: Carol Info Services Limited.
Judgment By: Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice J.B. Pardiwala.
Place Of Incident: Mumbai.
Judgment Date: 13-03-2023.

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

Download Judgment: shinhan-bank-vs-carol-info-services-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-13-03-2023.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Arbitration Awards
See all petitions in Institutional Arbitration
See all petitions in Enforcement of Awards
See all petitions in Settlement Agreements
See all petitions in Dispute Resolution Mechanisms
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in Judgment by P.S. Narasimha
See all petitions in Judgment by J.B. Pardiwala
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2023
See all petitions in 2023 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