From the review of the judgments in such petitions, it appears that when the parties enter into arbitration agreements, they do not guarantee a fair, clear and binding trial. Similarly, inaccurate and incomplete arbitration agreements are not clear as to whether the jurisdiction of Indian courts is included or excluded. While it is necessary for the courts to respect the main objectives of the law and minimize interference in the arbitration process, the obvious failures and ongoing efforts of a party to derail the arbitration process have required careful interpretation on the part of the Indian courts as to their own jurisdiction and the applicability of Part 1 of the Law. Some of these cases are the same: although the judgment in question does not deal with Section 11 (6-A), it served as the basis for another three-judge decision of united Insurance Company Ltd. v. Hyundai Engineering and Construction Company Ltd.8 (“United Insurance”). United Insurance participated in a similar insurance policy that contained a compromise clause stating that there was no difference or litigation if the insurance company had not challenged or accepted liability. The bank of the three judges at United Insurance distinguished Duro Felguera and found that the matter was not arbitral before it, since the insurance company had indeed raised a dispute. In Barnmore Demolition and Civil Engineering Ltd.
– Alandale Logistics Ltd., et al., No. 5910P, a construction dispute, the defendants asserted that they had participated in an arbitration agreement with the applicant on the basis of an outstanding draft contract, which contained an arbitration provision and the defendant`s assertion that the parties had an “agreement in principle”. The Irish court was questioned on whether the parties should be referred to arbitration proceedings in accordance with Article 8 of the Irish version of the Model Law. Article 8, paragraph 1, of the Model Act, as applicable in Ireland, provides that “a court before which an action is brought in a case that is the subject of an arbitration agreement , to refer the parties to arbitration, unless it finds that the agreement is null, inoperative or inoperative. » “…. If the judicial authority considers that the arbitration agreement exists prima facie, it refers the dispute to an arbitration procedure and will have the existence of the arbitration agreement definitively determined by the arbitration tribunal. However, if the judicial authority concludes that the agreement does not exist, the conclusion is final and not prima facie. In Hiscox Dedicated Corporate Member v. Weyerhaeuser Co  EWHC 2671 (Comm), the High Court sued the defendant (Weyerhaeuser) because it was very likely that the parties had agreed to submit their case to the London arbitration. It is sufficient to make a clear reference to the terms and conditions of sale which contain a compromise clause. After much uncertainty, it is now a determined right that, if there is a challenge to the validity of the material contract between the parties, the arbitration clause survives such a challenge and arbitrators are free to determine the validity or not of the contract. It is only if the compromise clause is independently challenged that the court itself has the power to intervene.