Mandatory Arbitration - The Legal Chamber

The Supreme Court held that Clause 13 of the contract, which stated disputes "may be sought through arbitration," did not constitute a binding arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The use of "may" indicated no mandatory intent to arbitrate, requiring further mutual consent. The Court emphasized that an arbitration agreement must reflect a clear, unequivocal commitment to resolve disputes through arbitration, excluding domestic courts. Mere enabling language without obligation is insufficient. The High Court’s dismissal of the arbitration application was upheld. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose between BGM & M-RPL-JMCT (JV) (Appellant) and Eastern Coalfields Limited (Respondent) over a contract for transportation/handling of goods. T...

The Supreme Court, in Bank of India vs. M/s Sri Nangli Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd., ruled that Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act is mandatory, requiring inter-se disputes between banks and financial institutions concerning secured assets to be resolved through arbitration. No explicit arbitration agreement is needed; the provision legally mandates it, thereby divesting DRT of jurisdiction in such matters. Facts Of The Case: In the case of Bank of India vs. M/s Sri Nangli Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., the core dispute involved the priority of charge over secured assets (stocks of paddy and rice) belonging to a common borrower, M/s Sri Nangli Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd., between two public sector banks: Bank of India (appellant) and Punjab National Bank (respondent). Both banks had extended credit facil...

Tag: Mandatory Arbitration

No Arbitration Without Clear Agreement: When Does a Dispute Clause Become Binding? Supreme Court’s Latest Verdict Explained

SARFAESI Act’s Section 11: Supreme Court Affirms Mandatory Arbitration for Financial Institutions