Clause Stipulating That Parties "May Be Referred To Arbitration" Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement - GTL Infrastructure v Vodafone India Ltd

TC
Tuli & Co
Contributor
Tuli & Co is an insurance-driven commercial litigation and regulatory practice established in 2000. With offices in New Delhi and Mumbai, we undertake work for a cross section of the Indian and international insurance and reinsurance market and work closely alongside Kennedys’ network of international offices
The Bombay High Court has held that a clause which contains the words "may be referred to arbitration" takes away from the mandatory and binding nature of an arbitration agreement.
India Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

The Bombay High Court has held that a clause which contains the words "may be referred to arbitration" takes away from the mandatory and binding nature of an arbitration agreement.

Facts

GTL and Vodafone entered into a Master Services Agreement (MSA) on 15 November 2007. Disputes arose between them in relation to contractual dues under the MSA. GTL invoked arbitration against Vodafone and approached the Bombay High Court for interim relief and for the appointment of an arbitrator.

Bombay High Court

The Court relied on precedent1 to hold that, as the arbitration clause contained words such as "may" and "if mutually agreed upon by the parties", it indicated that the parties did not intend a binding arbitration agreement. Such language contemplated future consent between the parties prior to a dispute being referred to arbitration and offered an option to a party not to arbitrate.

The Court went on to say that correspondence exchanged between the parties or argument raised before the Court after the dispute had arisen is of no consequence if the arbitration clause does not make arbitration mandatory.

Conclusion

An arbitration agreement can be considered valid and binding only if there is a specific and direct expression of intent to have disputes settled by arbitration.

Footnote

1. Babanrao Rajaram Pund v Samarth Builders and Developers & Anr (2022) 9 SCC 691; Jagdish Chander v Ramesh Chander & Ors (2007) 5 SCC 719; Wellington Associates Ltd v Kirit Mehta (2000) 4 SCC 272; Quick Heal Technologies Ltd. v NCS Computech Pvt.Ltd & Anr, 2020 SCC Online Bom 687

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Clause Stipulating That Parties "May Be Referred To Arbitration" Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement - GTL Infrastructure v Vodafone India Ltd

India Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Contributor
Tuli & Co is an insurance-driven commercial litigation and regulatory practice established in 2000. With offices in New Delhi and Mumbai, we undertake work for a cross section of the Indian and international insurance and reinsurance market and work closely alongside Kennedys’ network of international offices
See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More