The case is an appeal against a decision from the Delhi High Court on whether a dispute between Ameet Lalchand Shah and Rishabh Enterprises should be referred to arbitration or not.

The case relates to four agreements between Rishabh and three other companies. While three of the four agreements had arbitration clause, one agreement did not have an arbitration clause.

Disputes arose between Rishabh and one of the companies, Dante. This was sought to be referred to arbitration. Rishabh and its sole proprietor – Dr. AM Singhvi preferred a suit before the Delhi High Court, making various allegations against the companies who were arrayed as defendants in the suit.

When notice was issued to the companies in the suit by Rishabh, they contended that all agreements have to be treated as part of one transaction and are therefore, arbitrable in accordance with the express provisions contained in the three agreements.

Rishabh resisted the same contending that the suit was based upon allegations of serious fraud committed jointly and severally by the companies and these issues were not arbitrable but rather have to be decided by the civil Courts. It was further argued by the Rishabh that existence of an arbitration clause in some of the agreements could not per se drag the dispute arising out of the principal agreement into arbitration when no such stipulation was agreed to by the parties.

The single judge ruled in favour of Rishabh and Abhishek Manu Singhvi. This led to an appeal before a Division bench of Justices S Ravindar Bhat and IS Mehta.

The Division bench agreed with the decision of the single judge and dismissed the appeal whereupon the companies preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court.