following guest post is contributed by Bhushan Shah & Anchal Singh from Mansukhlal Hiralal &
Company. The views expressed in the post are personal.]
comprehensive code, broadly deals with the manner of creation of trusts, the
rights, powers and duties of trustees, breach of trust and remedies.
Jayesh Shah, (“Vimal Shah“),
the Supreme Court has earlier this year held that the disputes relating to trusts,
trustees and beneficiaries arising out of the trust deed and/ or the Trusts Act
are not capable of being adjudicated by an arbitrator despite the existence of
an arbitration agreement in the Trust Deed.
trust deed was executed in favor of six minor beneficiaries in 1983 (“Trust Deed“). Under the Trust
Deed, two trustees were appointed to manage the affairs of the Trust. The Trust
Deed also provided for an arbitration clause.
certain differences arose amongst the beneficiaries. They invoked the
arbitration clause in the Trust Deed, and subsequently some of the
beneficiaries made an application for the appointment of an arbitrator under
Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act“) (“Section 11 Application“).
Section 11 Application was contested, among other things, on the ground that
the said Application is not maintainable as the beneficiaries having not signed
the Trust Deed, they cannot be termed as ‘parties’ to such Trust Deed nor can
such Trust Deed be termed as an arbitration agreement within the meaning of sections
2(b), 2(h) and 7 of the Arbitration Act.
High Court allowed the Section 11 Application and appointed a sole arbitrator
for adjudication of disputes. One of the parties appealed to the Supreme Court.
following issues arose for determination in the Supreme Court:
Trust Deed constitutes a valid arbitration agreement under the provisions of
the Arbitration Act?
management of a Trust are capable of being settled through arbitration?
clause in a Trust Deed, the Supreme Court held that an arbitration clause in a
Trust Deed does not constitute a valid arbitration agreement as required under section
2(b) read with section 7 of the Arbitration Act. The Court placed reliance on
its own judgment in the Vijay
Kumar Sharma case (“Vijay’s
Case“). In this case, a similar question arose as to whether a clause
in a Will, which provided for settling disputes by an arbitrator in respect of
bequeathed property, would constitute a valid arbitration agreement. It was
held that in no case an arbitration clause in a Will constitutes a valid
arbitration agreement. It was further held that such a clause is a unilateral
declaration by the testator.
Testator, the Supreme Court held that the principles laid down in Vijay’s Case apply
to an arbitration clause in a Trust Deed in the light of the fact that in both
cases it is the Settlor / Testator alone who signs the document in favour of
Beneficiaries / Legatees: the Beneficiaries / Legatees are not required to sign
the document and hence they are not regarded as party to such deed or an
agreement between such parties.
placed reliance on a judgment of Calcutta High Court in Bijoy Ballav Kundu’s case (“Bijoy
Case“). In this case, an Arbitration clause in a Trust Deed was
invoked and an award was passed. The legality of the Award was challenged. The
Calcutta High Court said that for a valid agreement there must be a proposal
and an acceptance. It further held that by accepting a trust, a trustee merely
undertakes to carry out obligations of managing a trust. In accepting the
Trust, the trustees are bound to follow the provisions of the Trust Deed
whether or not they accept the clauses of the Trust Deed.
Bijoy’s Case, opined that, the concept of proposal and acceptance, which are
integral conditions of a valid agreement, are not required in the case of a
Trust. Although the Trustees accept the creation of the trust, they merely
undertake to carry out the terms of Trust Deed. Such terms are mere directions
in respect of how the affairs of the Trust are supposed to be managed. It
cannot be said that the Trustees or beneficiaries have agreed amongst
themselves as to how they should spend the money or manage the Trust. The
Supreme Court held that the Trusts Act provides a forum for redressal of
grievances and the same should be strictly interpreted.
relating to trust, trustees and beneficiaries arising out of the Trust Deed and
the Trusts Act are not capable of being decided by an arbitrator despite the
existence of arbitration agreement to that effect between the parties. The
Supreme Court placed reliance on another of its own judgments – the Booz Allen case – wherein
the following six categories of disputes were held to be non-arbitrable:
disputes which include (i) rights and liabilities arising out of or giving rise
to criminal offences; (ii) matrimonial disputes; (iii) guardianship matters;
(iv) insolvency and winding up; (v) testamentary matters; (vi) eviction or
tenancy matters where tenants enjoy statutory protection.
specifically confers jurisdiction on civil courts to redress grievances in the
respect of Trusts and hence the same cannot be decided by an arbitrator under
the Arbitration Act. Finally, the Supreme Court laid down an additional seventh
category of disputes that are non-arbitrable namely, cases arising out of Trust
Deed and Trusts Act.
the introduction of arbitration provisions in trust laws. Although, strictly
speaking, the Trust Deed cannot be considered as an agreement as rightly laid
down by the High Court, a liberal approach must be followed in the sense that availing
of benefits from the trust may be deemed an agreement to submit to arbitration.
However, until then, in the light of the above judgment, disputes relating to
trusts are non-arbitrable in India.