A contractual clause stating that disputes “can be settled by arbitration” merely indicates a permissive option and not a binding obligation, and where such clause requires further consent of parties for arbitration, it does not constitute a valid arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act; consequently, in absence of clear mutual intent, courts cannot compel arbitration under Section 11. (Paras 6, 12, 13)

advocatemmmohan

Arbitration – Arbitration Agreement – Mandatory vs Optional Clause – Interpretation of “can” – Party autonomy – Section 11 A&C Act – Absence of binding agreement

---

A. Arbitration clause – “Can” vs mandatory obligation

• Use of the word “can” denotes possibility, not compulsion.
• Clause stating disputes “can be settled by arbitration” is permissive, not mandatory.
  → No enforceable arbitration agreement (Paras 7, 13)

---

B. Arbitration agreement – Essential attributes

• Must reflect:
  • binding intention to arbitrate
  • enforceability
  • final adjudicatory mechanism
• Mere reference to arbitration insufficient.
  → Test from K.K. Modi applied (Para 12)

---

C. Agreement to agree – Not arbitration agreement

• Clause requiring future consent:
  • is only an agreement to enter into arbitration later
• Such clauses are unenforceable under Section 7
  → No present consensus ad idem (Paras 12, 13)

---

D. Party autonomy – Foundational principle

• Arbitration jurisdiction arises only from:
  • mutual consent of parties
• Courts cannot impose arbitration absent agreement
  → Consent is sine qua non (Para 6)

---

E. Contract interpretation – Primacy of language

• Words used by parties:
  • are decisive of intent
• Courts cannot:
  • substitute “shall” for “can”
    → Literal-contextual interpretation applied (Para 11)

---

F. Section 11 – Limited jurisdiction

• Court must only examine:
  • prima facie existence of arbitration agreement
• If none exists → application fails at threshold
  → No deeper enquiry warranted (Paras 7.1, 8)

---

G. Distinction – Mandatory vs optional dispute clauses

• “Shall” → binding obligation
• “May/Can” → discretionary (context dependent)
• Present clause → purely optional
  → Arbitration not exclusive remedy (Para 7)

---

H. Precedents – Distinguished

• Cases upholding arbitration:
  • where intent clearly mandatory
• Present case:
  • ambiguity + lack of consensus
    → No enforceable clause (Paras 9–10)

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS

1. Commercial contract for shipment of goods executed between parties. (Para 3)
2. Dispute arose:
   • delivery without original bill of lading
   • financial loss to appellant
     (Para 3)
3. Clause 25:
   • disputes “can be settled by arbitration”
     (Para 3)
4. Appellant invoked arbitration:
   • sought appointment under Section 11
5. Respondent:
   • denied arbitration obligation
   • asserted clause is optional
6. High Court:
   • dismissed application
7. Supreme Court:
   • examined nature of clause

---

ANALYSIS OF LAW

1. Semantic Interpretation (Para 7)

• “Can” = possibility / capability
• Not equivalent to:
  • “shall” (mandatory)

---

2. Party Autonomy Doctrine (Para 6)

• Arbitration:
  • voluntary dispute resolution
• Requires:
  • mutual agreement at inception

---

3. Section 11 Threshold (Paras 7.1, 8)

• Court role:
  • prima facie existence check
• If clause not binding:
  • no arbitral reference

---

4. Contractual Interpretation (Para 11)

• Applied maxim:
  • Ex praecedentibus et consequentibus optima fit interpretatio
• Meaning derived from:
  • context + wording

---

5. Test of Arbitration Agreement (Para 12)

From K.K. Modi:

• binding adjudication
• enforceable obligation
• definitive consent

→ Clause failed all

---

6. Jagdish Chander Principle (Para 13)

• Clauses indicating:
  • “parties may/can refer disputes”
    → Not arbitration agreements

---

7. Distinction from Liberal Approach Cases

• Liberal interpretation applies only where:
  • intent to arbitrate exists
• Here:
  • intent itself absent

---

RATIO DECIDENDI (Refined & Precise)

A contractual clause stating that disputes “can be settled by arbitration” merely indicates a permissive option and not a binding obligation, and where such clause requires further consent of parties for arbitration, it does not constitute a valid arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act; consequently, in absence of clear mutual intent, courts cannot compel arbitration under Section 11. (Paras 6, 12, 13)

---

OPERATIVE RESULT

• No valid arbitration agreement
• Section 11 application not maintainable
• Appeal dismissed

(Para 13)