2019 INSC 0150
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1695  OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 28693 of 2018)
Giriraj Garg   …Appellant
Versus
Coal India Ltd. & Ors.      …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
INDU MALHOTRA, J.
Leave granted.
1. T he   present   Civil   Appeal   arises   out   of   an   Order   dated
21/18.05.2018   passed   by   a   learned   Single   Judge   of   the
Jharkhand   High   Court   at   Ranchi,   in   Arbitration
Application   No.   11   of   2016.   The   Appellant   filed   an
Application u/S. 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act,   1996   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   “1996   Act”)   for
appointment   of   an   independent   arbitrator   to   adjudicate
1

the   disputes   that   had   arisen   between   the   Petitioner   and
Respondent No. 2. 
2. The   factual   matrix   of   the   present   case,   briefly   stated,   is
as under: 
2.1. Respondent   No.   1   issued   the   2007   Scheme,
whereby coal distribution would be conducted through
e­Auction,   with   a   view   to   provide   access   to   coal   for
buyers, who were not able to source coal through the
available  institutional  mechanism.  This system  would
provide an equal opportunity to purchase coal through
a   single­window   service   to   all   intending   buyers,   and
facilitate   country   wide   access   to   booking   coal   online
for   all   sections   of   coal   buyers,   through   a   simple,
transparent system.
Clause   11.12   of   the   2007   Scheme   contains   an
arbitration clause which reads as under ­
“11.12         In   the   event   of   any   dispute,
Bidder/Buyer   is   necessarily   required   to
represent   in   writing   to   the   General   Manager
(Sales   and   Marketing)   of   the   concerned   Coal
Company, who would deal with the same in a
period   of   1   month   from   such   representation.
Thereafter,   if   required   the   matter   be
determined   by   the   Director­In   Charge   of
Marketing   of   the   concerned   Coal   Company.
Any   interpretation   of   this   Clause   will   be
subject   to   clarification   by   CIL,   which   will   be
deemed as firm and final.   All disputes arising
2

out of this scheme or in relation thereto in any
form   whatsoever  shall   be   dealt  exclusively  by
way   of   arbitration   in   terms   of   the   Arbitration
and   Conciliation   Act,   1996.   The   arbitration
shall be conducted at Kolkata at a place to be
notified   by   CIL.   The   arbitrator   shall   be
appointed   by   the   Chairman   and   Managing
Director,   CIL   upon   written   request   in   this
behalf.   The   award   rendered   by   the   arbitrator
shall be final and binding on the parties. (The
place   of   arbitration   and   nomination   of
arbitrator   be   varied   appropriately   in   view   of
the Coal Company involved).
(emphasis supplied)
2.2. From   2012   to   2015,   the   Appellant,   being   a
registered   buyer   as   per   the   Terms   and   Conditions   of
the   2007   Scheme,   participated   in   the   e­Auction   for
purchase   of   coal   for   several   sale   orders   issued   under
the 2007 Scheme.
2.3. The   Appellant   was   declared   successful   with
respect to various coal orders. Sale orders were issued
in   favour   of   the   Appellant,   pursuant   to   which   he
deposited   the   Earnest   Money   Deposit   (hereinafter
referred to as “EDM”) and the coal value as per Clause
2.5 and 5.2 of the 2007 Scheme respectively.
2.4. As per Clause 7.2 of the 2007 Scheme, a period of
45 days was allowed to the Appellant from the date of
issue   of   the   delivery   order,   to   lift   the   coal.   The
3

Appellant   for   certain   reasons   was   unable   to   lift   the
booked quantity of coal.
2.5. Respondent  No. 1 considered this  to  be a breach
of the Terms and Conditions of the 2007 Scheme, and
forfeited   the   EMD   deposited   by   the   Appellant   under
Clause 9.2 of the 2007 Scheme.
2.6. As   a   consequence,   disputes   arose   between   the
parties.   The   Appellant   served   a   Notice   dated
21.03.2016   invoking   the   arbitration   Clause   11.12
under the 2007 Scheme.
The   Respondents   failed   to   appoint   an   arbitrator
as per Clause 11.12 of the 2007 Scheme.
2.7.   The   Appellant   was   therefore   constrained   to   file
an   Application   u/S.   11   before   the   Jharkhand   High
Court   at   Ranchi,   for   appointment   of   an   independent
arbitrator.
2.8. The   learned   Single   Judge   vide   impugned   Order
dated   21/18.05.2018   rejected   the   Application   on   the
ground   that   the   disputes   relate   to   different
transactions   entered   into   between   the   parties,   under
the  2007 Scheme. The sale orders did not contain  an
arbitration   clause.   It   was   held   that   even   though   the
2007   Scheme   contains   an   arbitration   clause,   none   of
4

the   individual   sale   orders   make   reference   to   the
applicability   of   terms   and   conditions   of   the   2007
Scheme   to   the   sale   orders.   Hence,   the   arbitration
clause could not be incorporated by reference. 
3. Aggrieved by  the aforesaid Order, the Appellant has filed
the present Appeal.
We   have   heard   learned   Counsels   Dr.   Kedar   Nath
Tripathy,   Mr.   B.   B.   Pradhan,   Mr.   Susanta   Kr.   Muduti,
and   Mr.   M.   A.   Aleem   Majid   for   the   Appellants   and   Mr.
Anupam   Lal   Das,   Mr.   Anirudh   Singh   and   Mr.   Krishanu
Barua   for   the   Respondents   and   perused   the   documents
on record.
3.1.  A copy of a Sale Order issued by Respondent No.
2 was brought to our notice, which contains Standard
Terms   and   Conditions   at   the   end.   Clause   7   of   the
Terms and Conditions state that the sale orders would
be governed by the Guidelines, Circulars, Notices, and
Instructions issued by Coal India Ltd., Bharat Coking
Coal Ltd.  etc.  
Clause 7 is set out hereinbelow for ready reference ­
“7.   The   sale   order   will   be   governed   by
guidelines   –   circulars   –   office   orders   –
notices   –   instructions,   relevant   law   etc.
issued   from   time   to   time   by   Coal   India
Ltd.,   Bharat   Coking   Coal   Ltd.,   State
Govts.,   Central   Govt.   and   other   statutory
5

bodies.   This   is   also   subject   to   any   future
escalation   in   prices   and   or   levies/or
duties­taxes   etc.   which   may   be   imposed
from time to time.”
(emphasis supplied)
4. The   short   question   before   this   Court   is   whether   the
arbitration   clause   contained   in   the   2007   Scheme,   would
stand   incorporated   by   reference   in   each   of   the   sale
orders.
4.1.   The principle of incorporation by reference of an
arbitration clause, from another  document or contract
is   a   well­established   principle   in   arbitration
jurisprudenc e. 1
  This   principle   has   been   followed   by
the   courts   in   India,   and   has   been   given   statutory
recognition in sub­section (5) of Section 7 of the 1996
Act. 
4.2. Section 7(5) states that the reference in a contract
to   a   document   containing   an   arbitration   clause,
constitutes   a   valid   arbitration   agreement,   if   the
contract is in writing, and the reference is specifically
made to incorporate the arbitration clause as a part of
the contract.
1   Clements   v.   Devon   Country   Insurance   Committee ,   [1918]   1   KB   94 ;
Macleod   Ross   and   Co.   Ltd.   v.   Compagnie   d’   Assurances   Generales
L’Helvetia of St Gall ,   [1952] 1 All ER 331, 334   : [1952] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 12
(CA).
6

4.3. The   arbitration   agreement   need   not   necessarily
be in the form of a clause in the substantive contract
itself.   It   could   be   an   independent   agreement;   or   it
could   be   incorporated   by   reference   either   from   a
parent  agreement,  or   by  reference  to   a  standard  form
contract . 
4.4. Section   7(5)   of   the   1996   Act,   closely   replicates
Article   7(2) 2
  of   the   UNCITRAL   Model   Law   as   it   stood
prior   to   the   2006  amendment.   Dr   Peter  Binder  in   his
Commentary   titled   “ International   Commercial
Arbitration   and   Conciliation   in   UCITRAL   Model   Law
2   Art. 7. Definition and form of arbitration agreement. —
(1)   ‘Arbitration   agreement’   is   an   agreement   by   the   parties   to
submit   to   arbitration   all   or   certain   disputes   which   have   arisen   or
which   may   arise   between   them   in   respect   of   a   defined   legal
relationship,   whether   contractual   or   not.   An   arbitration   agreement
may   be   in   the   form   of   an   arbitration   clause   in   a   contract   or   in   the
form of a separate agreement.
(2) The arbitration agreement shall be in writing. An agreement
is in writing if it is contained in a document signed by the parties or
in   an   exchange   of   letters,   telex,   telegrams   or   other   means   of
telecommunication which provide a record of the agreement, or in an
exchange of statements of claim and defence in which the existence
of  an agreement  is  alleged by   one party  and not  denied by  another.
The reference in a contract to a document con taining an arbitration
clause   constitutes   an   arbitration   agreement   provided   that   the
contract   is   in   writing   and   the   reference   is   such   as   to   make   that
clause part of the contract.
7

Jurisdictions”   3
  has   interpreted   Article   7(2)   to   include
incorporation by reference in the following words: 
“(d)   Reference   to   a   document   containing   an
arbitration clause
The   third   sentence   of   art.   7(2)   is   concerned
with   a   contract   containing   a   reference   to   a
document   that   contains   an   arbitration   clause.
Provided that the main contract is in “writing”
and   that   the   reference   “is   such   as   to   make
that   clause   part   of   the   contract”,   the
arbitration   agreement   is   valid.   The   necessity
of including this provision arose from problems
and   divergent  court   decisions  on   this  issue   in
the   context   of   the   New   York   Convention.   The
travaux   explain   that   it   is   sufficient   if   the
reference only refers to the document; specific
mention of the arbitration clause therein is not
necessary.”
(emphasis supplied)
4.5. Section   6(2)   of   the   English   Arbitration   Act,   1996
is   pari   materia   to   Section   7(5)   of   the   1996   Act,   and
reads as under:
“ 6. Definition of arbitration agreement.
(1)…..
(2) The reference in an agreement to a written
form   of   arbitration   Clause   or   to   a   document
containing   an   arbitration   Clause   constitutes
an   arbitration   agreement   if   the   reference   is
such   as   to   make   that   Clause   part   of   the
agreement. ”
3   Dr.   Peter   Binder,   International   Commercial   Arbitration   and
Conciliation   in   UNCITRAL   Model   Law   Jurisdictions ,   (3 rd
  Edn.,   2010,
Sweet & Maxwell) pg. 86, para 2­022
8

The   Queen's   Bench   Division,   Commercial   Court
in   Sea   Trade   Maritime   Corporation   v.   Hellenic   Mutual
War Risks Association (Bermuda) Limited, The Athena 4
held   that   the   general   words   of   incorporation   of   a
standard form contract  were enough to incorporate an
arbitration clause.
4.6. The   question   of   incorporation   of   an   arbitration
Clause   from   an   earlier   contract   by   general   reference
into a later contract ,  came up for consideration before
the   Queen's   Bench   Division   in   Habas   Sinai   Ve   Tibbi
Gazlar   Isthisal   Endustri   AS   v.   Sometal   SAL 5
.   In   this
case,   the   Court   followed   the   judgment   in   the   case   of
Sea Trade Maritime Corporation   (supra) ,   and held that
a   general   reference   to   a   contract   containing   an
arbitration clause is  sufficient for incorporation from a
standard   form   of   contract.   The   Court   recognized   t he
following   broad   categories   in   which   the   parties
attempt to incorporate an arbitration  clause :
“   (1)   A   and   B   make   a   contract   in   which   they
incorporate standard terms. These may be the
standard   terms   of   one   party   set   out   on   the
back of an offer letter or an order, or contained
4  [2006] EWHC 2530 (Comm)
5  [2010] EWHC 29 (Comm)
9

in   another   document   to   which   reference   is
made;   or   terms   embodied   in   the   Rules   of   an
organi z ation   of   which   A   or   B   or   both   are
members; or they may be terms standard in a
particular trade or industry.
(2)   A   and   B   make   a   contract   incorporating
terms   previously   agreed   between   A   and   B   in
another   contract   or   contracts   to   which   they
were both parties
(3)   A   and   B   make   a   contract   incorporating
terms   agreed   between   A   (or   B)   and   C.
Common   examples   are   a   bill   of   lading
incorporating the terms of a charter to which A
is a party; reinsurance contracts incorporating
the   terms   of   an   underlying   insurance;   excess
insurance contracts incorporating the  terms of
the primary layer of insurance; and building or
engineering   sub   contracts   incorporating   the
terms  of  a  main  contract   or  sub­sub   contracts
incorporating the terms of a sub contract.
(4)   A   and   B   make   a   contract   incorporating
terms agreed between C and D. Bills of lading,
reinsurance   and   insurance   contracts   and
building contracts may fall into this category.  ”
In  Habas   (supra) a distinction was made between
a   ‘single   contract   case’   and   a   ‘two­contract   case’.   A
‘single   contract   case’   is   one   where   the   arbitration
clause   is   contained   in   a   standard   form   contract   to
which   there   is   a   general   reference   in   the   contract
between   the   parties.   On   the   other   hand,   where   the
arbitration clause is contained in an earlier contract/
some   other   contract,   and   a   reference   is   made   to
10

incorporate it in the contract between the parties, it is
a   ‘two­contract   case’.   The   Court   held   that
incorporation by general reference in a single contract
case is valid. However, in a ‘two­contract case’, where
reference   is   made   to   an   arbitration   clause   in   a
separate   contract,   the   reference   must   be   specific   to
the arbitration clause. The judgment in  Habas   (supra)
has   recently   been   affirmed   by   the   Queen’s   Bench
Division in  SEA2011 Inc.  v.  ICT Ltd. 6
4.7. Russell   in   his   commentary   on   arbitration 7
  has
commented on the single and two contract cases, and
reference   to   standard   form   terms,   in   the   following
passage, which is instructive : 
“   Reference   to   standard   form   terms,
single   and   two­contract   cases.   If   the
document   sought   to   be   incorporated   is   a
standard form set of terms and conditions the
courts   are   more   likely   to   accept   that   general
words   of   incorporation   will   suffice.   This   is
because   the   parties   can   be   expected   to   be
more   familiar   with   those   standard   terms,
including   the   arbitration   clause.   In   Sea   Trade
Maritime   Corporation   v.   Hellenic   Mutual   War
Risks   Association   (Bermuda)   Ltd.,   (The
"Athena")   No.   2   the   Court   drew   a   distinction
between what is described as a "two contract
case",   that   is   where   the   arbitration   Clause   is
contained in a secondary document which is a
contract to which at least one party is different
6  [2018] EWHC 520 (Comm)
7   Russell on Arbitration  (24 th
 Edn. ,2015, Sweet & Maxwell) pp. 52 – 
54, para 2­049
11

from   the   parties   to   the   contract   in   question,
and   "a   single   contract   case"   where   the
arbitration   Clause   is   in   standard   terms   to   be
found in another document. Relying on dictum
of   Bingham   LJ   in   Federal   Bulk   Carries   Inc   v.
C.   Itoh   &   Co.   Ltd.   (The   "Federal   Bulker"),
Langley J stated that:
"In principle, English law accepts incorporation
of standard terms by the use of general words
and,   I   would   add,   particularly   so   when   the
terms   are   readily   available   and   the   question
arises   in   the   context   of   dealings   between
established   players   in   a   well­known   market.
The principle, as the dictum makes clear, does
not   distinguish   between   a   term   which   is   an
arbitration   Clause   and   one   which   addresses
other   issues.   In   contrast,   and   for   the   very
reason   that   it   concerns   other   parties,   a
"stricter rule" is applied in charterparty/bills of
lading   cases.   The   reason   given   is   that   the
other party may have no knowledge nor ready
means   of   knowledge   of   the   relevant   terms.
Further, as the authorities illustrate, the terms
of   an   arbitration   Clause   may   require
adjustment if they are  to  be made to apply to
the parties to a different contract."
The   Court   therefore   reinforced   the   distinction
between   incorporation   by   reference   of
standard   form   terms   and   of   the   terms   of   a
different   contract,   and   concluded   that   in   a
single   contract   case   general   words   of
incorporation   are   sufficient,   whereas   by   its
nature   a   two   contract   case   may   require
specific  reference  to  the  other contract, unless
the secondary document is stated to be based
on   standard   form   terms   containing   an
arbitration   agreement.   In   that   case,
presumably   specific   reference   to   the
arbitration   Clause   would   not   be   needed.   As
discussed   below,   this   approach   has   been
endorsed in subsequent cases, albeit drawing
a   slightly   different   but   "material"   distinction
between   incorporation   of   the   terms   of   a
separate   contract   ­   standard   or   otherwise   ­
12

made   between   the   same   parties   which   are
treated as "single contract" cases, even where
there   is   in   fact   more   than   one   contract;   and
those   where   the   terms   to   be   incorporated   are
contained   in   a   contract   between   one   or   more
different parties which are treated as the "two
contract" cases. 
Extension   of   the   single   contract   cases.
Recently,   the   courts   appear   to   have   extended
the   "single   contract"   principle   applicable   to
standard form contracts, where general words
of   incorporation   will   suffice,   to   other   types   of
contract where the same rationale can be said
to   apply.   Thus,   if   the   document   sought   to   be
incorporated   is   a   bespoke   contract   between
the   same   parties,   the   courts   have   accepted
this as  a "single contract" case  where  general
words   of   incorporation   will   suffice,   even
though   the   other   contract   is   not   on   standard
terms   and   constitutes   an   entirely   separate
agreement.   The   rationale   for   this   approach   is
that   the   parties   have   already   contracted   on
the   terms   said   to   be   incorporated   and   are
therefore   even   more   likely   to   be   familiar   with
the   term   relied   on   than   a   party   resisting
incorporation   of   a   standard   term.   Put   another
way,   if   general   words   of   incorporation   are
sufficient   for   the   latter,   they   should   be   even
more so for the former. The courts also appear
to have accepted as a "single contract" case a
situation   where   the   contract   referred   to   is
between   one   of   the   parties   to   the   original
contract and a third party, where the contracts
as a whole "were entered into in the context of
a single commercial relationship.”
(emphasis supplied)
4.8. An   early   case   in   Indian   arbitration   on   the
doctrine   of   incorporation   by   reference   under   the
Arbitration   Act,   1940   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the
“1940   Act”),   was   Alimenta   SA   v.   National   Agriculture
13

Co­op Marketing Federation of India Ltd. 8
  Though there
was no specific provision on an arbitration agreement
being   based   on   the   doctrine   of   incorporation   by
reference   in   the   1940   Act,   this   Court   recognized   it   to
be   applicable   in   Indian   law.   In   this   case,   th is   C ourt
held   that   the   arbitration   clause   of   an   earlier   contract
could   be   incorporated   by   reference   into   a   later
contract,   provided   it   is   not   repugnant   to,   or
inconsistent with the terms of the contract in which it
is incorpo rated. 
4.9. In  the 1996 Act, the  doctrine  of incorporation  by
reference is provided in the statue itself under Section
7(5)   of   the   Act.   I n   M.R.   Engineers   &   Contractors   Pvt.
Ltd.   v.   Som   Datt   Builders   Ltd. , 9
  th is   Court   held   that
even   though   a   contract   between   the   parties   did   not
contain   a   provision   for   arbitration,   an   arbitration
clause   contained   in   an   independent   document   would
be   incorporated   into   the   contract   by   reference,   if   the
reference   is   such   as   to   make   the   arbitration   clause   a
8  (1987) 1 SCC 615 : AIR 1987 SC 643 : 84 (2000) DLT 494.
9  (2009) 7 SCC 696 : 2009 (3) Arb LR 1 (SC) : 2009 (9) SCALE 298.
14

part of  the  contract. The  court explained the  doctrine
of incorporation in the following words   –
“24. The  scope  and intent of Section 7(5)  may
therefore be summarised thus:
(i)   An   arbitration   clause   in   another   document,
would   get   incorporated   into   a   contract   by
reference,   if   the   following   conditions   are
fulfilled : 
(1)   The   contract   should   contain   a   clear
reference   to   the   documents   containing
arbitration clause, 
(2) the reference to the other document should
clearly indicate an intention to incorporate the
arbitration clause into the contract, 
(3)   The   arbitration   clause   should   be
appropriate,   that   is   capable   of   application   in
respect   of   disputes   under   the   contract   and
should   not   be   repugnant   to   any   term   of   the
contract.
(ii)   When   the   parties   enter   into   a   contract,
making   a   general   reference   to   another
contract,   such   general   reference   would   not
have the effect of incorporating the  arbitration
clause   from   the   referred   document   into   the
contract   between   the   parties.   The   arbitration
clause   from   another   contract   can   be
incorporated   into   the   contract   (where   such
reference is made), only by a specific reference
to arbitration clause.
(iii)   Where   a   contract   between   the   parties
provides   that   the   execution   or   performance   of
that   contract   shall   be   in   terms   of   another
contract   (which   contains   the   terms   and
conditions   relating   to   performance   and   a
provision   for   settlement   of   disputes   by
arbitration),   then,   the   terms   of   the   referred
contract   in   regard   to   execution/performance
alone   will   apply,   and   not   the   arbitration
agreement   in   the   referred   contract,   unless
there   is   special   reference   to   the   arbitration
clause also.
15

(iv)   Where   the   contract   provides   that   the
standard   form   of   terms   and   conditions   of   an
independent   Trade   or   Professional   Institution
(as   for   example   the   Standard   Terms   &
Conditions of a Trade Association or Architects
Association)   will   bind   them   or   apply   to   the
contract,   such        standard   form   of   terms   and
conditions   including   any   provision   for
arbitration   in   such   standard   terms   and
conditions, shall be deemed to be incorporated
by reference.  Sometimes the contract may also
say   that   the   parties   are   familiar   with   those
terms   and   conditions   or   that   the   parties   have
read   and   understood   the   said   terms   and
conditions.
(v)   Where   the   contract   between   the   parties
stipulates   that   the   Conditions   of   Contract   of
one  of  the  parties   to  the  contract   shall   form   a
part   of   their   contract   (as   for   example   the
General   Conditions   of   Contract   of   the
Government where Government is a party), the
arbitration clause forming part of such General
Conditions   of   contract   will   apply   to   the
contract between the parties.”
(emphasis supplied)
4.10. This   Court   in   Inox   Wind   Ltd.   v.   Thermocables
Ltd. 10  
while   adopting   the   ‘single   contract   case’   and
‘two­contract   case’   principle   laid   down   by   Habas
(supra), held that a general reference to a consensual
standard   form   is   sufficient   for   incorporation   of   an
arbitration clause. In other words, general reference to
a   standard   form   contract   of   one   party,   would   be
sufficient for incorporation of the arbitration clause. In
10  (2018) 2 SCC 519
16

this   case,   the   Court   expanded   the   application   of   this
doctrine by holding that even a general reference to a
standard form contract of one party, along with those
of   trade   associations,   and   professional   bodies   would
be sufficient to incorporate the arbitration clause.
5. In   the   instant   case,   the   learned   Single   Judge   in   the
impugned  Order   has   erroneously   taken   the   view   that   an
arbitration   clause   would   not   stand   incorporated   in   the
individual sale orders entered into by the Respondent No.
2 – Coal Company and the Appellant. The individual sale
orders emanate out of the 2007 Scheme. The sale orders
specifically   state   that   they   would   be   governed   by   the
guidelines,   circulars,   office   orders,   notices,   instructions,
relevant   law   etc.   issued   from   time   to   time   by   Coal   India
Limited   or   Bharat   Coking   Coal   Limited   etc.   As   a
consequence, the arbitration clause ( i.e.   Clause 11.12) in
the   2007   Scheme   would   stand   incorporated   in   the   sale
orders issued thereunder.
Clause   7   in   the   sale   orders   falls   under   the   ‘single
contract   case’   where   the   arbitration   clause   is   contained
in   a   standard   form   document   i.e.   the   2007   Scheme,   to
17

which   there   is   a   reference   in   the   individual   sale   orders
issued by Respondent No. 2 – the Coal Company. 
5.1. The arbitration clause in the 2007 Scheme clearly
states that :
“ All   disputes   arising   out   of   this   scheme   or   in
relation   thereto   in   any   form   whatsoever   shall
be   dealt   exclusively   by   way   of   arbitration   in
terms   of   the   Arbitration   and   Conciliation   Act,
1996.”
(emphasis supplied)
Russell   in   his   commentary   on   arbitration 11
  has
interpreted these words as follows :
“ Disputes   “in   connection   with”,   “in
relation   to”,   or   “regarding”   a   contract.
These   words,   which   are   frequently
encountered   and   are   to   be   given   the   same
meaning,   were   at   one   time   given   a   restricted
interpretation, but are now well established as
having  a   broad   meaning….. They  may  also   be
sufficient   to   catch   disputes   arising   under
another   contract   related   to   the   contract
containing the arbitration clause.”
(emphasis supplied)
In   Renusagar   Power   Co.   Ltd.   v.   General   Electric
Company   and   Anr., 12
  this   Court   observed   that
expressions such as “arising out of”, or “in respect of”, or
“in   connection   with”,   or  “in   relation   to”,   the   contract   are
of the widest amplitude, and content.
11   Russell on Arbitration  (24 th
 Edn. ,2015, Sweet & Maxwell) pg. 82, 
para 2­103
12  
[1985]1SCR432
18

In   Doypack   Systems   Pvt.   Ltd.   v.   Union   of   India   and
Ors. , 13
  this   Court   observed   that   expressions   such   as   –
“pertaining   to”,   “in   relation   to”   and   “arising   out   of”,   are
used   in   the   expansive   sense,   and   must   be   construed
accordingly.
The words  “in relation thereto”   used in Clause 11.12 of
the 2007 Scheme indicate that the clause would apply to
all   transactions   which   took   place   under   the   2007
Scheme.   This   would   include   the  sale   transactions   in   the
present case.
5.2. In view of the above discussion, the view taken by
the   learned   Single   Judge   is   erroneous,   and   is   hereby
set­aside. The appeal is allowed.
6. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties consensually
agreed   to   appoint   Mr.   Justice   Pranab   Kumar
Chattopadhyay   (Retired   Judge   of   the   Calcutta   High
Court;   Address:   P­29/3,   Jotish   Roy   Road,   Kolkata   –
700053)   as   Sole   Arbitrator   to   adjudicate   the   disputes
which have arisen between the Appellant and Respondent
No. 2, under the 2007 Scheme. 
13  1988 (36) ELT 201 (SC)
19

The appointment of Mr. Justice Chattopadhyay will be
subject   to   the   disclosure   and   declaration   made,   as   per   the
Sixth Schedule to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
(as amended by the 2015 Amendment Act). 
The proceedings will be conducted in Kolkata.
Ordered accordingly.
.…..........................J.
(UDAY UMESH LALIT)
…...……………………J.
(INDU MALHOTRA)
New Delhi,
February 15, 2019.
20