Case Name : Mahadadi Coalfields Ltd & Anr vs IVRCL AMR Joint Venture Case Reference: (2022) SCC OnLine SC 960 Case Number: CA No. 4914/2022 Court: Supreme Court Bench: 02 Coram: DY Chandrachud (Author), AS Bopanna Date: 25.07.2022
Words used should disclose a determination and obligation to go to arbitration and not merely contemplate possibility of going for arbitration. (para 9; internal 8(i)) When there is a mere possibility of parties going to arbitration in future, there is no valid and binding arbitration agreement. (para 9; internal 8(i)) An agreement that 1. requires or permits an authority to decide on a claim or dispute without hearing or 2. requires the authority to act in the interest of only party, or 3. provides that the decision will not be final and binding on the parties, or 4. provides that either party may file a civil suit on not being satisfied with the decision *cannot be termed as an arbitration agreement (para 9; internal 8(iii))
Mere use of the word arbitration or arbitrator does not make it an arbitration agreement if it requires further or fresh consent of parties. (para 9; internal 8(iv))
Refer also: Jagdish Chander vs Ramesh Chander, (2007) 5 SCC 719
See also: A&C Act, 1996 - Section 11