Enforceable Arbitration Agreements: Essentials Under Indian Law

Rise of Arbitration in India

Arbitration has emerged as a vital tool for resolving commercial disputes in India. It offers businesses a faster, private alternative to overburdened courts. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, modelled on the UNCITRAL framework, provides the legal backbone and emphasizes party autonomy under Section 5. Central to this system is the arbitration agreement, which must clearly empower a tribunal to decide disputes. Courts often scrutinize its validity under Section 7, especially amid complex contracts or missing clauses, balancing pro-arbitration policy with clear consent requirements.

Core Elements and Supreme Court Tests

Section 7(1) defines an arbitration agreement as a pact to submit disputes from a defined legal relationship, contractual or not, to arbitration. Courts stress a firm, present intent to arbitrate, not mere future possibilities. In Jagdish Chander v. Ramesh Chander (2007), the Supreme Court ruled that words like "arbitration" alone do not suffice. Even without explicit terms, it qualifies if it meets four attributes: written form, referral of disputes to a private tribunal, impartial adjudication with party input, and binding decisions. Missing these renders it unenforceable, prioritizing substance over labels.

Pitfalls of Ambiguity

Ambiguous drafting undermines enforceability. In BVEPL Bhartia (JV) v. State of West Bengal (2024), the Calcutta High Court struck down an optional arbitration clause beside mandatory conciliation. It held that headings like "Arbitration" do not override weak language. Courts demand unequivocal commitment and reject clauses allowing court alternatives. Disputes must also stem from legally recognized relationships, excluding moral obligations, with Section 7(3) mandating writing. Kerala State Electricity Board v. Kurien Kalathil (2018) confirmed oral agreements fail this test.

Flexible Proof and Arbitrability

Writing under Section 7(4) can appear in signed documents, email exchanges, or unchallenged pleadings. In Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. Texmo Pipes (2024), the Madras High Court upheld arbitration via purchase orders and emails despite no signed contract. Not all disputes qualify: Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation (2021) set a four-fold test barring in rem rights, third-party impacts, sovereign functions, and statutory exclusions like insolvency or matrimony.  

Inferred Agreements from Conduct

Absent formal clauses, emails and drafts can imply agreements. In Lords Inn Hotels v. Pushpam Resorts (2025), the Bombay High Court found intent in negotiation trails referencing arbitration, despite final omission, applying Section 7(4)(b). The court used a five-part business efficacy test: reasonableness, contract efficacy, "goes without saying," clear expression, and no contradiction with express terms. This inferred a binding clause, honouring commercial intent over technical gaps.

Conclusion: Balancing Autonomy and Clarity

Indian courts favour arbitration while insisting on rigor. Core needs include written records, legal ties, firm intent, and arbitrable matters. Judicial pragmatism via conduct evidence has evolved the framework, as seen in these cases. Precise drafting and documented consent remain essential to ensure agreements withstand scrutiny and uphold party autonomy effectively.