Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Company, (1984) 4 SCC 679 held, “expressions such as “arising out of” or “in respect of” or “in connection with” or “in relation to” or “in consequence of” or “concerning” or “relating to” the contract are of the widest amplitude and content.” Mansukhlal Dhanraj Jain v. Eknath Vithal Ogale, (1995) 2 SCC 665 emphasized the comprehensive nature and wide sweep of the term “relating to” in the context of The Small Causes Courts Act, 1887. Doypack System (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1988) 2 SCC 299 held, the expression “in relation to” is broad and is equivalent to the expressions “concerning with” and “pertaining to”, with the latter also being expansive in ambit.
While the phrases “arising out of” and “relating to” have been given an expansive interpretation in the above cases, words can have different meanings depending on the subject or context. Words are after all, a vehicle for communicating ideas, thoughts and concepts. A one-size-fits-all analogy may not always hold good when we construe similar words in entirely distinct settings.
– Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. Amit Gupta, [Civil Appeal No. 9241 of 2019].
Also see, Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project Ambadi, Bhandara, Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation v. Mahesh, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 13093-13094 of 2018] decided on 10.11.2021.