Supreme Court On Supplemental Agreement

There is no specific test to decide whether the endorsement is independent or inseparable. As a rule, an addendum contains additional clauses to complete the initial agreement, which means that it can hardly exist independently. In this case, the main provisions of the initial agreement relate to the construction of a building, without looking at the details of the water and electricity works. The addendum contains detailed provisions concerning water and electricity works. Although the payment for water and electricity works may be dissociated from the initial agreement, the content of the amendment remains subsections of all building work. Thus, the Supreme People`s Court of the PRC finds that the addendum is subordinate and inseparable from the initial agreement and is therefore subject to the same arbitration clause provided for in the initial agreement. This does not mean, of course, that any dispute involving several contracts should automatically be referred to a single arbitral tribunal. Even in the case of multi-party transactions covering several related contracts, the parties may deliberately structure the agreements in order to create different obligations for each group of contracting parties. If the addendum is separated independently of the original agreement and the original agreement, it is necessary to examine the actual content of the dispute— whether the dispute arises from or in connection with the content of the original agreement or amendment, and then decide which dispute settlement clause applies. While the disputes concern simultaneously the content of the initial agreement and the supplementary agreement, it is still unclear which method of dispute settlement should be applied. In addition, in Ameet Shah, the SC stayed away from its previous decision in Sukanya Holdings against Jayesh H. Pandya (2003) 5 SCC 531 (Sukanya). In the Sukanya case, it was decided that a case cannot be referred to arbitration if all parties to a civil action are not aware of the arbitration agreement; since the law does not provide for a partial reference to arbitration proceedings.

The SC of Ameet Shah was right to draw attention to the amendments to the 2015 Act and found that the amended amendment to amended Section 8(1) clearly allowed persons asserting their rights by or under any part of the arbitration agreement to request a reference to arbitration, notwithstanding a previous judicial precedent. The SC then referred all parties to the dispute to arbitration. In particular, although the SC did not make a concrete finding to that effect, Sukanya should actually be put out of force, given the amendment of section 8 and the decision of the SC in Ameet Shah. A large number of commercial transactions have now become complex multi-faceted partial transaction structures. Several parties enter into several separate but interconnected and interdependent agreements in order to achieve a common business objective. In deciding on the request for a single reference, the SC first checked its report in Chloro Controls. In this regard, it should be recalled that the SC constructively constructed not only the arbitration clause contained in the parent agreement, but also the transaction as a whole. In introducing its formative analysis of Chloro Controls, the SC found in Ameet Shah that all parties could be covered by the arbitration clause contained in the main agreement, as the four agreements were clearly linked and had to achieve the sole commercial objective of building the solar facility in Uttar Pradesh, India.

. . .