In India, trust disputes are considered wholly non-arbitrable. The Supreme Court conclusively established this in Shri Vimal Kishor Shah & Ors. v. Jayesh Dinesh Shah & Ors., and since then, there has been little discussion on the subject. Recently, however, an English High Court, by its decision in Grosskopf v. Grosskopf, rekindled a worldwide discussion on the arbitrability of trust disputes. It held such disputes to be arbitrable despite the arbitrator’s inability to grant relief for each claim. This motivates a relook at the Indian position, given our tendency to trail English arbitration jurisprudence. As a policy measure, arbitration could possibly cater to the specific demands of trusts and ensure a more efficient resolution of disputes. This position, however, is not legally intuitive. The equitable origins of trusts place civil courts in a unique supervisory position, burdened with protecting a trust’s functioning. This may inherently be at odds with the private nature of the arbitration. Nevertheless, other jurisdictions have managed to reconcile these innate differences to allow trustees, beneficiaries and settlors of trusts to enjoy the benefits of arbitration. This paper seeks to argue that such models permitting the arbitration of trust disputes should be adopted for India, too. In doing so, it also suggests a framework around which to construct this Indian model.
