Section 7 Arbitration Act - 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 ruled that Article 20 of the Concession Agreements between MCD and private contractors did not constitute a valid arbitration clause under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court emphasized that clauses lacking mutual intent, impartial adjudication, and procedural fairness cannot be enforced as arbitration agreements, directing parties to pursue alternative remedies. The judgment reiterated the essential elements of arbitration clauses from K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi (1998) and upheld precedent in SDMC v. SMS AAMW Tollways (2019). Facts Of The Case: The case involved three separate appeals before the Supreme Court concerning Concession Agreements between the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and private contractors (SMS Ltd., DSC Ltd., and CCC ...

Tag: Section 7 Arbitration Act

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

Supreme Court Clarifies: When Does a Dispute Resolution Clause Qualify as Arbitration? Mediation or Arbitration