Holding

The arbitration agreement is enforceable; the final‑award‑waiver provision is severable, and the Court may appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) with Delhi as the venue.

Summary

Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd., a Thai satellite service provider, entered into a contract with Jain Studios Ltd. that contained an arbitration clause (Clause 23) requiring disputes to be referred to arbitration in Delhi under UNCITRAL rules, with the award deemed final and binding and a waiver of any right of appeal. The contract also included a severability clause (Clause 20). When a dispute arose, Shin Satellite gave notice, appointed a retired judge as its arbitrator, and asked Jain Studios to appoint one, but the latter refused, claiming the arbitration clause was illegal because it barred court review and sought to shift the venue to London or Singapore. Shin Satellite filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator. The Supreme Court held that the objectionable finality provision was severable from the rest of the arbitration clause, that the agreement was therefore enforceable, and that the venue stipulated in the contract (Delhi) must be respected. Consequently, the Court appointed Justice M. L. Pendse (Retd.) as the sole arbitrator and rejected the respondent’s request for time to appoint an arbitrator or to change the venue.

Issues considered

The validity of an arbitration clause that makes the award final and binding and waives the right of appeal under Section 28 of the Contract Act, 1872.
Whether a severability clause allows the enforceability of the remaining parts of an arbitration agreement when the finality provision is invalid.
The power of the Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint an arbitrator when a party fails to do so.
The permissibility of changing the agreed place of arbitration from Delhi to London or Singapore.
The nature of the function performed by the Chief Justice or his nominee under Section 11(6).

Legislation cited

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996s. 11(6), s. 20
Indian Contract Act, 1872s. 28

Subjects

ArbitrationSeverabilityFinal award clauseWaiver of appealSection 11(6) appointmentVenue of arbitrationContract Act Section 28Public policy

Judgment

SHIN SATELLITE PUBLIC CO. LTD. A
v.
MIS JAIN STUDIOS LTD.

JANUAkY 31, 2006

[C.K. THAKKER, J.] B

Arbitration-Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996-Section 11 (6)~
Contract Act, 1872-Section 28-Arbitration Agreement-Doctrine· of
Severability-Appointment of Arbitrator-Agreement between petitioner and
respondent company for availing broadcasting services of petitioner by C
respondent-Clause 23 providing for arbitration in case of dispute between
the parties-This clause makes the arbitrator's determination final and
binding between the parties declaring that parties had waived the rights of
appeal or objection in any jurisdiction-Clause 20 explicitly providing for
severability of agreement-Petitioner sending a letter/notice to respondent D
' demanding for arbitration-Respondent alleging that arbitration dause not
legal and valid-Petitioner filing application uls 11 (6) of the Act-Held,
Objectionable part as to finality and restraint in approaching a court of law
is clearly severable as it is independent of dispute being referred to and ·
resolved by an arbitrator-The agreement is legal, lawful and enforceable E
and offending part can be separated and severed using a 'blue pencil'-
Hence arbitrator appointed.

Section 11 (6)-Loss of right to make appointment of arbitrator as per
arbitration agreement-Respondent failing to appoint arbitrator in terms of
arbitration agreement even though letter I notice issued to it by petitioner F
to do so-Petitioner filing application u/s 11 (6) for appointment of
arbitrator-Respondent now seeking time to make appointment of an
arbitrator-Held, . at this belated stage the respondent cannot be permitted
to take advantage of its own fault-Refusing the prayer, held, respondent
having failed to appoint the arbitrator the person nominated by petitioner
appointed as Sole Arbitratcr. G
Section 20-Arbitration-Change of place whether permissible-
·y Arbitration agreement providing Delhi as the place for arbitration-Prayer
to refer the dispute for arbitration in London or in Singapore where other

933 H
934 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] I S.C.R.

A arbitrations going on between the same parties-Held, prayer cannot be
granted.

The petitioner, a company registered under the laws of Thailand, carries
on satellite business and provides broadcasting and internet services to
various companies/firms in the world. The respondent is an Indian Company.
B An agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent.
Clause 23 of the agreement provided for arbitration in case of dispute. Clause
23 contained a condition that the arbitrator's determination would be treated
as final and binding between the parties and the parties had waived all rights •
of appeal or objection in any jurisdiction. Clause 20 of the agreement declared
C that if any provision is held invalid, illegal or unenforceable, it would not affect
other clauses. A dispute arose between the parties. The petitioner sent a letter/
notice to the respondent for referring the dispute to an arbitrator stating
therein that it had appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. L. Pendse (retired) as its
arbitrator and called upon the respondent to appoint an arbitrator. The
respondent replied that arbitration clause was not legal and valid. The
D petitioner filed an application u/s 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act 1996 praying for appointment of an arbitrator.

The respondent contended that the Arbitration Agreement was not legal
and valid as arbitration clause takes away completely the right of the parties
E to challenge the award passed by the arbitrator. It was also pleaded that since
disputes were to be resolved by arbitration under the rules of UNCITRAL,
arbitration may be held in London or in Singapore where arbitration
proceedings were going on between the parties.

The petitioner submitted that since agreement itself provides for
severability, ignoring the objectionable part giving finality to arbitration award,
F
the remaining parts can be enforced.

Allowing the Arbitration Petitio11, the Court

HELD : I. I. A court of law will read the agreement as it is and cannot
G rewrite nor create a new one. The contract must be read as a whole and it is
not open to dissect it by taking out a pa1 t treating it to be contrary to law and
by ordering enforcement of the rest if otherwise it is not permissible. But it
is well settled that if the contract is in several parts, some of which are legal
and enforceable and some are unenforceable, lawful parts can be enforced
provided they are severable. In several cases, courts have held that partial
H invalidity in contract will not ipso facto make the whole contract void or
SHIN SATELLITE PUBLIC CO. LTD. v. JAIN STUDIOS LTD. 935
'( unenforceable. Wherever a contract contains legal as well as illegal parts A
) and objectionable parts can be severed, effect has been given to legal and valid
parts striking out the offending parts. (942-G; 943-B]

1.2. The proper test for deciding validity or otherwise of an agreement
or order is 'substantial severability' and not 'textual divisibility'. It is the duty
of the court to severe and separate trivial or technical part by retaining the B
main or substantial part and by giving effect to the latter if it is legal, lawful
and otherwise enforceable. In such cases, the Court must consider the
question whether the parties could have agreed on the valid terms of the
agreement had they known that the other terms were invalid or unlawful. If
the answer to the said question is in the affirmative, the doctrine of severability C
would apply and the valid terms of the agreement could be enforced, ignoring
invalid terms. To hold otherwise would be " to expose the covenanter to the
almost inevitable risk of litigation which in nine cases out of ten he is very
ill able to afford, should he venture to act upon his own opinion as to how far
the restraint upon him would be held by the court to be reasonable, while it
~ may give covenantee the full benefit of unreasonable provisions if the D
'1 covenanter is unable to face litigation." [946-C-E)

Halsbury 's Laws of England (Fourth Edition); Volume 9; Para 430; p.
297, Chitty on Contracts (29th Edition); Volume I; pp.1048-49, referred to.

SBP & Company v. Patel Engineering Ltd., (2005) 8 SCC 618, referred E
to

Goldsoll v. Goldman, (1914) 2 Ch 603, Attwood v. Lamont, (1920) 2
KB 146, Kall-Kwik Printing (UK.) Limited v. Frank Clearence Rush, (1996)
FSR 114, Coringa Oil Co. v. Koegler, !LR (1876) 1 Cal 466, Babasahed F
Rahimsaheb v. Rajaram Raghunath, AIR (1931) Born 264 and Union
Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. Chief Engineer, Eastern Command, Lucknow &
Anr., AIR (1960) All 72, relied upon.

Re Davstone Estates Ltd. 's Leases, Manprop, Ltd. v. O'Dell & Ors.,
[1969) 2 All ER 849, referred to.
G
2. In the present case, clause 23 relates to arbitration. It is in various
·,. parts. The first part mandates that, if there is dispute between the parties, it
shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration. It clarifies that the
rules of UNCITRAL would apply to such arbitration. It then directs that the
arbitration shall be held in Delhi and will be in English language. It stipulates H
936 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] I S.C.R.

A that the costs of arbitration shall be shared by the parties equally. The r
offending and objectionable part, no doubt, expressly makes the arbitrator's
determination "final and binding between the parties" and declares that the
parties have waived the rights of appeal or objection" in any jurisdiction".
The said objectionable part, however, is clearly severable as it is independent
B of the dispute being referred to and resolved by an arbitrator. Hence, even in
the absence of any other clause, the part as to referring the dispute to
arbitrator can be given effect to and enforced. By implementing that part, it
cannot be said that the Court is doing something which is not contemplated
by the parties or by 'interpretative process', the Court is re-writing the
...
contract which is in the nature of 'novatio ·. The intention of the parties is
C explicitly clear and they have agreed that the dispute, if any, would be referred
to an arbitrator. To that extent, therefore, the agreement is legal, lawful and
the offending part as to the finality and restraint in approaching a Court of
law can be separated and severed by using a 'blue pencil'.
(945-F-H; 946-A-B]

D 3. The agreement in the instant case can be enforced on an additional
ground as well. Clause 20 (Severability) expressly states that if any provision r
of the agreement is held invalid, illegal or unenforceable, it would not prejudice
the remainder. Clause 20 makes the matter free from doubt. The intention of
the parties is abundantly clear and even if a part of the agreement is held
E unlawful, the lawful parts must be enforced. Reference of a dispute to an
arbitrator, by no means can be declared illegal or unlawful. To that extent,
therefore, no objection can be raised by the respondent against the agreement.
(946-E-G)

4. It may be stated here that on behalf of the respondent, it was submitted
F that if the matter is referred to arbitration in London or in Singapore, it had
no objection. But as the Arbitration Agreement provides 'Delhi' as the venue
and since that part of the agreement is enforceable, the prayer of the
respondent cannot be granted. Since there is failure on the part of the
respondent in making an appointment of an arbitrator in accordance with the
agreement, the prayer for grant of time to make an appointment of an
G arbitraror cannot be granted. At this belated stage, now, the respondent cannot
be permitted to take advantage of its own default. Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.L.
Pendse (Retired) is accordingly appointed as Sole Arbitrator. [946-H; 947-A-
D)

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Arbitration Petition No. I of2005.
H
}
SHIN SATELLITE PUBLIC CO.LTD. v. JAIN STUDIOS LTD. [THAKKER . .l.]937

(Under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.) A
Arun H. Mehta, Ankit Singhal and Nikhil Nayyar for the Petitioner.

K.N. Bhat, Neeraj Kumar Jain, Aditya Kumar Chaudhary, Bharat Singh,
Sanjay Singh and Ugra Shankar Prasad for the Respondent.
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

C.K. THAKKER, J. This Arbitration Petition is filed by the petitioner,
Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. against the respondent, M/s Jain Studios Ltd.
under sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is prayed in the application that C
Hon 'ble Mr. Justice M. L. Pendse (Retired) be appointed as Sole Arbitrator,
or in the alternative, any other retired Judge of a High Court may be appointed
as an Arbitrator. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India has nominated me to
exercise power under sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act and that is how
the matter has been placed before me for passing an appropriate order.
) D
It is the case of the petitioner that it is a Company registered under the
laws of Thailand, having its principal office in Thailand. The petitioner carries •
on the satellite business and has got three satellites in the orbit, viz., Thaicom-
1, Thaicom-2 and Thaicom-3. The petitioner, through above satellites, provides
broadcasting and internet services to various Companies/ firms in the world. E
The respondent is a Company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956
having its registered office at New Delhi.

According to the petitioner, an agreement was entered into between the
parties on August 10, 1999 for availing broadcasting services of the petitioner
by the respondent. The agreement, inter alia, provided for supply of satellite F
services, payment of fees, etc. Clause 23 provided for arbitration in case of
dispute arising from the interpretation or from any matter relating to the
performance of the agreement or rights or obligations of the parties. Since the
dispute arose between the parties, the petitioner, through advocate addressed
a letter/notice to the respondt:1t on September 9, 2004 demanding for arbitration
under clause 23. The petitioner, in the said letter. stated that it had appointed G
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.L. Pendse (Retired) as its arbitrator and called upon
the respondent to appoint an arbitrator. The petitioner. however, received a
letter dated 7th October, 2004 from the respondent's advocate contending that
the arbitration clause was not legal and valid and clause 23 of the Arbitration
Agreement could not be termed as ·Arbitration Clause'. According to the H
938 SUPREME COL:RT REPORrS [20061 I S.C.R.

A petitioner, thus. the r~spondent failed to appoint an arbitrator which compelled
the petitioner-company to file present application under Section 11 (6) of the
Act. A prayer was, therefore, made to make an appointment of an arbitrator.

On March 17, ."!005, notice was issued on the application. The learned
counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent and waived service of notice.
B Time was sought to file counter-affidavit. which was granted.

A reply-affidavit was then filed by the respondent urging therein that
the Arbitration Agreement was not legal and valid. It was conh:nded that
Clause 23 contained a condition that the arbitrator's determination would be
C treated as 'final and binding between the parties' and the parties had waived
'all rights of appeal or objection in any jurisdiction'. It was also submitted that
the disputes were to be resolved by arbitration under the rules of United
Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). Whereas
Agreement in question dated August I0, 1999 provided that th<: arbitration
would be held in Delhi in accordance with Indian Law, under other two
D Agreements. the place of arbitration was fixed at Singapore and London
respectively, and the governing law was English Law. lt was, therefore. stated
that in the present case also, arbitration may be held in London or in Singapore.
where arbitration proceedings were going on between the parties.

The matter could not be heard finally as the question as to the nature
E of function to be performed by the Chief Justice or his nominee under sub-
section (6) of Section 11 of the Act was referred to a seven-Judge Bench. In
SBP & Company v. Patel Engineering ltd, (2005] 8 SCC 618 the point was
finally decided. It was held by majority that the function performed by the
Chief Justice or his nominee under Section 11 (6) of the Act is a judicial
F function. After the above decision, the matter was placed for hearing and
both the sides were heard.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that an agreement had
been entered into between the parties which contained an arbitration clause
and in accordance with the terms of the agreement, a letter/notice was issued
G by the petitioner to the respondent for referring the matter to an arbitrator.
It was also stated that the petitioner has appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.L.
Pendse (Retd.l as its arbitrator and asked the responoent to appoint an
arbitrator. The respondent, however, contended that the Arbitration Agreement 'f
was not legal and valid and arbitration clause was not in consonance with
law. In the circumstances the petitioner has tiled the present application which
H deserves to 1:-e allowed by appointing an arbitrator.
SHIN SATELLITE PUBLIC CO.LTD. 1· . .JAIN STUDIOS LTD. [THAKKER. J. J 939

i Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that A
' the petition is not maintainable as the so called arbitration clause can neither
be said to be legal, nor in accordance with law and as such cannot be
enforced. According to the counsel, the arbitration clause takes away
completely the right of the parties to challenge the award passed by the
arbitrator. Clause 23 of the agreement is not only in restrain of legal proceedings B
to be initiated in a competent court of law but is also against public policy.
Such provisions are held to be unenforceable in several cases. The petitioner
is, therefore, not entitled to seek enforcement of arbitration clause and the
petition is liable to be dismissed.

On merits, it was submitted that three agreements had been entered into C
between the parties. Whereas, in other two cases, arbitration proceedings
were held in foreign country, in this case the venue is Delhi. This would create
enormous difficulties for both the parties. If an arbitration is held in London
or in Singapore, the dispute can be decided along with other matters. It was
stated that the respondent has no objection if the petitioner is agreeable to
the suggestion of the respondent to hold arbitration out of India. D
The question for consideration before me is whether the arbitration
agreement is legal, valid and enforceable. Before considering respective
'contentions of learned counsel on the point, it would be appropriate if the
relevant clauses of the agreement are considered. As already stated, the
agreement had been entered into on 10th August, 1999. It was duly signed E
by the parties. It provides for resolution of disputes, if any, arising between
the parties to the agreement. Clause 19 relates to "Governing Law" and
' declares that the rights and responsibilities of the parties would be governed
~ by Indian Law. Clause 23 deals with arbitration and is, therefore, material and
may be quoted in extenso: F
"23. ARBITRATION

Any dispute arising from the interpretation or from any matter
relating to the performance of this Agreement or relating to any right
or obligation herein contained which cannot be resolved by the parties G
shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration under the rules
of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law
(UNCITRAL). The arbitration shall be held in New Delhi and shall be
in the English language. The arhitratur 's determination shall be final
and binding between the parties and the parties waive all rights of
appeal or obiection in any jurisdiction. The costs of the arbitration H
940 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 120061 I S.C.R.

A shall be shared by the parties equally.''

(emphasis supplied)

Clause 20 is another relevant clause providing severability and reads
thus:
B "20. SEVERABILITY

If any provision of this agreement is held invalid, iilegal or
unenforceable for any reason, including by judgment of, or
interpretation of relevant law, by any Court of competent jurisdiction,
c the continuation in full force and effect of the remainder of them shall
not be prejudiced."

The main contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that
clause 23 made the arbitrator's determination "final and binding between the
parties" and the parties have waived all rights of appeal or objection "in any
D jurisdiction". According to the counsel, the said provision is inconsistent •
with Section 28 of the Contract Act, 1872 as also against public policy.

In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that clause 23
is in several parts and all parts are severable. It was expressly conceded
before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the italicized portion
E on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the respondent is
not in consonance with law and is not enforceable. He, however, submitted
that the said part is independent of other parts and ignoring the offending
part, the remaining parts which are legal, valid and binding, can be enforced.

Moreover, the agreement itself provides for severability. Clause 20 of
F the agreement declares that if any provision is held invalid, illegal or
unenforceable for any reason, it would not affect other clauses. It was,
therefor~, submitted that ignoring the objectionable part relating to acceptance
of arbitrator's determination as 'final and binding' and waiving right of
objecting the award as unenforceable, the remaining parts can be enforced.
·G The petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed.

In the light of submissions of the learned counsel. let me consider the
legal position.

In Halsbury 'slaws of England (Fourth Edition); Volume 9; Para 430: p.
H 297, it has been stated:
SHIN SATELLITE PUBLIC CO. LTD. v. JAIN STUDIOS LTD. [THAKKER, l.) 941

-( "430. Severance of illegal and void provisions.-A contract will A
.,. rarely be totally illegal or void and certain parts of it may be entirely
lawful in themselves. The question therefore arises whether the illegal
or void parts may be separated or "severed" from the contract and the
rest of the contract enforced without them. Nearly all the cases arise
in the context of restraint of trade, but the following principles are
applicable to contracts in general. B

First, as a general rule, severance is probably not possible where
~
the objectionable parts of the contract involve illegality and not mere
4 void promises. In one type of case, however, the courts have adopted
what amounts almost to a principle of severance by holding that if a
statute allows works to be done up to a financial limit without a
c
licence but requires a licence above that limit, then, where works are
done under a contract which does not specify an amount but which
in the event exceeds the financial limit permitted without licence, the
cost of the works up to that limit is recoverable.
~ D
Secondly, where severance is allowed, it must be possible simply
j to strike out the offending parts but the court will not rewrite or
rearrange the contract.

Thirdly, even ifthe promises can be struck out as afore-mentioned,
the court will not do this if to do so would alter entirely the scope
E
and intention of the agreement.

Fourthly, the contract, shorn of the offending parts, must retain
the characteristics of a valid contract, so that if severance will remove
~
the whole or main consideration given by one party the contract
becomes unenforceable. Otherwise, the offending promise simply drops F
out and the other parts of the contract are enforceable.

Reference may be made to Chitty on Contracts (29th Edition); Volume
I; pp. 1048-49;

"16-188 /ntroductory.-Where all the terms ofa contract are illegal or G
against public policy or where the whole contract is prohibited by
statute, clearly no action can be brought by the guilty party on the
•,; contract; but sometimes. although parts of a contract are unenforceable
for such reasons. other parts, were they to stand alone, would be
unobjectionable. The question then arises whether the unobjectionable
H
942 SUPREME COURT REPGRTS 120061 I S.C.R.

A may be enforced and the objectionable disregarded or "severed". The
same question arises in relation to bonds where the condition is partly
against the law.

16-189 Partial statutory invalidity.- -It was laid down in some of the
older cases that there is a distinction between a deed or condition
B which is void in part by statute and one which is void in part at
common law. This distinction must now be understood to apply only
to cases where the statute enacts that an agreement or deed made in

c
violation of its provisions shall be wholly void. Unless that is so, then
provided the good part is separable from and not dependent on the
bad, that part only will be void which contravenes the provisions of
-
the statute. The general rule is that "where you cannot sever the
illegal from the legal part of a covenant, the contract is altogether
void; but, where you can sever them, whether the illegality be created
by statute or by the common law. you may reject the bad part and
retain the good." Thus, a covenant in a lease that the tenant should
D pay "all parliamentary taxes," only included such as he might lawfully
pay, and a separate covenant to pay the landlord's property tax, which
it was illegal for a tenant to contract to pay, although void, did not
affect the validity of the instrument. In some situations where there
is a statutory requirement to obtain a licence for work above a
stipulated financial limit but up to that limit no licence is required, the
E courts will enforce a contract up to that limit. There is some doubt
whether this applies to a lump sum contract "'for a single and indivisible
work." Even in this situation if the cost element can be divided into
its legal and illegal components, the courts will enforce the former but
not the latter.
F (emphasis supplied)

It is no doubt true that a court of law will •ead the agreement as it is
and cannot rewrite nor create a new one. It is also true that the contract must
be read as a whole and it is not open to dissect it by taking out a part treating
G it to be contrary to law and by ordering enforcement of the rest if otherwise
it is not permissible. But it is well-settled that if the contract is in several parts,
some of which are legal and enforceable and some are unenforceable, lawful
parts can be enforced provided they are severable.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, in my opinion. rightly submitted
H that the court must consider the question keeping in view settled legal
/
~
SHIN SA TEL LITE PUBLIC CO.LTD. v. JAIN STUDIOS LTD. [THAKKER. J. ]943

j
position and record a finding whether or not the agreement is severable. If A
the court holds the agreement severable, it should implement and enforce that
~·
part which is legal, valid and in consonance of law.

In several cases, courts have held that partial invalidity in contract will
not ipso facto make the whole contract void or unenforceable. Wherever a
contract contains legal as well as illegal parts and objectionable parts can be B
severed, effect has been given to legal and valid parts striking out the
offending parts.

~ In Goldsoll v. Goldman; (1914) 2 Ch 603, the defendant was a dealer
in imitation jewellery in London. He sold his business to the plaintiff and
covenanted not to compete with the plaintiff as a "dealer in real or imitation c
jewellery in any part of the United Kingdom, the United States of America,
Russia or Spain". When the covenant was sought to be enforced, it was
contended that the same was in restrain of a trade and could not be enforced.
It was, however, held that the covenant was unreasonable and unenforceable
insofar as it extended to 'real' jewellery and also to competition outside the D
United ·Kingdom. But it was valid, reasonable and enforceable with regard to
rest, namely, dealing in imitation jewellery and in Unitej Kingdom. According
to the Court, the words "real or" and the listed places outside the United
Kingdom could be severed leaving only reasonable covenant which was
enforceable.
E
In Al/wood v. Lamont, (1920) 2 KB 146, the plaintiff was carrying on
business as a draper, tailor and general outfitter at Kidderminster. By a
contract for employment, the defendant agreed with the plaintiff that he would
I
not, at any time thereafter "either on his own account or on that of any wife
\ of his or in partnership with or as assistant, servant or agent to any other
F
person, persons or company carry on or be in any way directly or indirectly
concerned in any of the following grades or businesses, that is to say, the
trade or business of a tailor, dressmaker, general draper, milliner, hatter,
haberdasher, gentlemen's, ladies' or children's outfitter at any place within a
radius often miles of' Kidderminster. The defendant, however, subsequently
set up business as a tailor at Worcester, outside the ten miles limit, but G
.. obtained and executed tailoring orders in Kidderminster. When the plaintiff
brought an action. it was contended by the defendant that the agreement was
"' illegal and cou Id not be enforced. The Court, however, held that various parts
of the contract were severable and valid part thereof could be enforced.
,. Upholding the argument of the plaintiff and granting relief in his favour, the
H
944 SUPREME COliRT REPORTS [2006] I S.C.R.

A Court observed that the Courts \~ould sever in a proper case, where the
severance can be made by using a 'hfue pencil'. But it could be done only
in those cases where the part so enforceable is clearly severable and not
where it could not be severed. By such process, main purport and substance
of the clause cannot be ignored or overlooked. Thus, a covenant "not to carry
B on business in Birmingham or within I00 miles" may be severed so as to
reduce the area to Birmingham, but a covenant "not to carry on business
within I00 miles of Birmingham'' will not be severed so as to read "will not
carry on business in Birmingham". The distinction may appear to be artificial,
but is well-settled.

C In Re Davstone Estates ltd. 's leases, Manprop, ltd. v. O'Dell & Ors.,
[1969] 2 All ER 849, on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for
the respondent, is clearly distinguishable. In that case. the Court held that the
agreement entered into between the parties was opposed to public policy and
hence was not enforceable.

D Similarly, Kalf-Kwik Printing (UK) limited v. Frank Cfearence Rush,
(1996) FSR 114, instead of supporting the respondent, helps the petitioner.
There it was observed that ifthe covenant i> severable, it could be implemented
by applying the 'blue pencil' test.

The legal position in India is not different.
E
In Coringa Oil Co. v. Koegler, /LR ( 1876) I Cal 466, a clause in the
agreement stated that all disputes be referred to arbitrator of two competent
London Brokers and their decision would be 'final'. Dealing with the question
of legality of such clause, the Court held that the contract could be enforced
by excluding the part as regards challenge to such award. It would not affect
F the jurisdiction of the court, and to that extent, the clause is not enforceable.
The other stipulation, however, would not become void or inoperative.

In Babasaheb Rahimsaheb v. Rajaram Raghunath, AIR (1931) Born 264,
there were several clauses in the contract. When the question as to
G enforceability came up before the court, it was held that if different clauses
in an agreement are separable, the fact that one clause is void does not
necessarily cause the other clauses to fail.

In Union Construction Co. (Pi ltd. v. Chief Engineer, Eastern
-
Command, Lucknow and A11r.. AIR [1960] All T!., a similar contention was
H raised that the Arbitration Agreement giving finality and conclusiveness was .-
/

SHIN SA TEL LITE PUBLIC CO.LTD. v. JAIN STUDIOS LTD. [THAKKER. J.]945

-> illegal and unenforceable as it was hit by Section 28 of the Contract Act. A
\ Clause 68 of the Arbitration Agreement, which was similar to the case on
hand, read thus:

"68. Arbitration-All disputes, between the parties to the Contract
arising out of or relating to the Contract, other than those for which
the decision of the C. W.E. or of any other person is by the Contract B
expressed to be final and conclusive, shall after written notice by
either party to the Contract to the other of them be referred to the sole
arbitration of an Engineer. Officer to be appointed by the authority
mentioned in the tender documents.

Un less the parties otherwise agree, such reference shall not take C
place until after the completion, alleged completion or abandonment
of the Works or the determination of the Contract.

The venue of Arbitration shall be such place or places as may be
fixed by the Arbitrator in his sole discretion.
D
The award of the Arbitrator shall be final, conclusive and
binding on both parties to the Contract."

(emphasis surplied)

The Court held that the sub-clause making the award 'final and E
conclusive' was clearly separable from the main clause which made reference
to an arbitrator imperative. "The existence of the sub-clause or the fact that
the sub-clause appears to be void does not in any way affect the right of the
I parties to have recourse to arbitration and does not make a reference to an
\ arbitrator any the less an alternative remedy."
F
In the present case, clause 23 relates to arbitration. It is in various parts.
The first part mandates that, if there is a dispute bttween the parties, it shall
be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration. It clarifies that the rules of
UNCITRAL would apply to such arbitration. It then directs that the arbitration
shall be held in Delhi and will be in English language. It stipulates that the
costs of arbitration shall be shared by the parties equally. The offending and G
objectionable part, no doubt, expressly makes the arbitrator's determination
-,,. "final and binding between the parties" and declares that the parties have
waived the rights of appeal or objection "in any jurisdiction". The said
· objectionable part, in my opinion, however, is clearly severable as it is
~ independent of the dispute being referred to and resolved by an arbitrator. H
946 Sl IPREME COURT REPORTS [20061 I S.C.R.

A Hence, even in the absence of any other clause, the part as to referring the
dispute to arbitrator can be given effect to and enforced. By implementing
that part, it cannot be said that the Court is doing something whi-:h is not
contemplated by the parties or by 'interpretative process', the Court is re-
writing the contract which is in the nature of 'novatiu'. The intention of the
B parties is explicitly clear and they have agreed that the dispute, if any, would
be referred to an arbitrator. To that extent, therefore, the agreement is legal,
lawful and the offending part as to the finality and restraint in approaching
a Court of law can be separated and severed by using a 'blue pencil'.

The proper test for deciding validity or otherwise of an agreement or
C order is 'substantial severability' and not 'textual divisibility'. It is the duty
of the court to severe and separate trivial or technical part by retaining the
main or substantial part and by giving effect to the latter if it is legal, lawful
and otherwise enforceable. In such cases, the Court must consider the question
whether the parties could have agreed on the valid terms of the agreement
had they known that the other terms were invalid or unlawful. If the answer
D to the said question is in the aff:rmative, the doctrine of severability would
apply and the valid terms of the agreement could be enforced, ignoring invalid
terms. To h_old otherwise wou Id be "to expose the covenanter to the almost
inevitable risk of litigation which in nine cases out of ten he is very ill able
to afford, should he venture to act upon his own opinion as to how far the
E restraint upon him would be held by the court to be reasonable, while it may
give the covenantee the full benefit of unreasonable provisions if the
covenanter is unable to face litigation."

The agreement in the instant case can be enforced on an additional
ground as well. As already noted, clause 20 (Severability) expressly states
p that if any provision of the agreement is held invalid, illegal or unenforceable,
it ~ould not prejudice the remainder. In my view, clause 20 makes the matter
free from doubt. The intention of the parties is abundantly clear and even if
a part of the agreement is held unlawful, the lawful parts must be enforced.
Reference of a dispute to an arbitrator, by no means can be declared illegal
or unlawful. To that extent, therefore, no objection can be raised by the
G respondent against the agreement.

It may be stated here that on behalf of the respondent, it was submitted
that if the matter is referred to arbitration in London or in Singapore, it had
no objection. But as the Arbitration Agreement provides 'Delhi' as the venue
H and since that part of the agreement is enforceable, the prayer of the
SHIN SATELLITE PUBLIC CO. LTD. v. JAIN STUDIOS LTD. [Tl-IAKKER,J.] 947

respondent cannot be granted. A
Finally, it was submitted by the respondent that if this Court is not
upholding the objection of the respondent and is inclined to grant the prayer
of the petitioner, some time may be granted to the respondent to make an
appointment of an arbitrator. It was not done earlier because according to the
respondent, clause 23 was not enforceable. The learned counsel for the B
petitioner objects to such a prayer. According to him, a letter/notice was
issued and in spite of request by the petitioner, the respondent had failed to
exercise his right to appoint an arbitrator. At this belated stage, now, the
respondent cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own default In my
opinion, since there is failure on the part of the respondent in making an C
appointment of an arbitrator in accordance with the agreement, the prayer
cannot be granted.

For the foregoing reasons, the arbitration petition stands allowed and
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.L. Pendse (Retired) is accordingly appointed as Sole
Arbitrator. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order D
as to costs.

K.G. Arbitration petition allowed.