Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 · Chapter I
Section 45: Power of judicial authority to refer parties to arbitration
In plain words
When a court gets a case on a matter covered by an agreement under section 44, it must refer the parties to arbitration on a party's request, unless it prima facie finds the agreement null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
Notwithstanding anything contained in Part I or in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), a judicial authority, when seized of an action in a matter in respect of which the parties have made an agreement referred to in section 44, shall, at the request of one of the parties or any person claiming through or under him, refer the parties to arbitration, [unless it prima facie finds] that the said agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed.
Source: India Code (indiacode.gov.in), the consolidated text published by the Legislative Department, Government of India. Text as updated on India Code on 16 October 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 45
- Campos Brothers Farms v. Matru Bhumi Supply Chain Pvt. Limited and Ors
- Cox and Kings Ltd. v. Sap India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
- M/S Arupri Logistics Pvt Ltd v. Shri Vilas Gupta and Ors
- M/s N. N. GLOBAL MERCANTILE PRIVATE LIMITED v. M/s
- Sasan Power Limited v. North American Coal Corporation India Private Limited
- T.N. Generation & Distbn. Corpn. Ltd. v. Ppn Power Gen. Co. Pvt. Ltd.
- Enercon (India) Ltd. & Ors. v. Enercon Gmbh & Anr.
- Chatterjee Petrochem Co. & Anr v. Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. & Ors.
- Chloro Controls (I) P. Ltd. v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. and Ors.
- Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Service, Inc.
- Sumitomo Corporation v. Cdc Financial Services (Mauritius) Ltd. & Ors.
- Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. v. Aksh Optifibre Ltd. and Anr.
- The Owners and Parties Interested in the Vessel M.V. "Baltic Confidence" and Anr. v. State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. and Anr.