Site navigation

In which of the following judgements the Supreme Court of India had held that power exercised by the…

In SBP & Co. vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. and Another, (2005) 8 SCC 618 (a 7-Judge Constitution Bench decision), the Supreme Court of India overruled the 5-Judge Constitution…

Choose your answer

In which of the following judgements the Supreme Court of India had held that power exercised by the Chief Justice of the High Court or the Chief Justice of India under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not an administrative power but a judicial power?

Select one answer
Answer and explanation

Correct answer C

In SBP & Co. vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. and Another, (2005) 8 SCC 618 (a 7-Judge Constitution Bench decision), the Supreme Court of India overruled the 5-Judge Constitution Bench decision in Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. vs. Rani Construction (P) Ltd., (2002) 2 SCC 388 (as well as Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. vs. Mehul Construction Co., (2000) 7 SCC 201) and held that the power exercised by the Chief Justice of the High Court or the Chief Justice of India under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a judicial power and not an administrative power. (Note on subsequent statutory evolution: the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 substituted 'the Supreme Court or, as the case may be, the High Court' in Section 11 and inserted Section 11(6A) confining referral scrutiny to the existence of an arbitration agreement, as expounded in In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and the Indian Stamp Act 1899, 2023 INSC 1066.)

Option feedback

Option A

Incorrect. In Konkan Railway Corpn. Ltd. v. Mehul Construction Co., (2000) 7 SCC 201, a three-Judge Bench held that the order of the Chief Justice or his designate under Section 11(6) was administrative in nature.

Option B

Incorrect. In Konkan Railway Corpn. Ltd. v. Rani Construction (P) Ltd., (2002) 2 SCC 388, a five-Judge Constitution Bench affirmed Mehul Construction and held that the power under Section 11(6) was purely administrative; that view was overruled in SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd.

Option C

Correct. In SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd. and Another, (2005) 8 SCC 618, a seven-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court overruled Konkan Railway Corpn. Ltd. v. Rani Construction (P) Ltd. and held that the power exercised by the Chief Justice of the High Court or the Chief Justice of India under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not an administrative power, but a judicial power.

Option D

Incorrect. Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. NEPC India Ltd., (1999) 2 SCC 479 dealt with interim measures by the Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the commencement of arbitral proceedings.

Practice for these exams

Related exam syllabi

Related questions in this topic