Mere use of word arbitrator or mediators do not create arbitration agreement

Last updated: 09 November 2022
Quick Summary
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that using the terms 'Mediators/Arbitrators' in a dispute resolution clause within a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) does not automatically constitute a valid arbitration agreement. The Court found that the individuals named were acting as escrow agents, responsible for facilitating the transaction, rather than adjudicating disputes. Their role was to ensure the smooth completion of the share sale, and their 'decisions' were provisional, related to the transaction's implementation, not final dispute resolution.

Court :
Apex Court

Brief :
The Apex Court held that - Dispute resolution clause in MoU used words "Mediators/Arbitrators", "any breaches" and "decision to be final" is not an Arbitration Clause /Agreement.

Citation :
Civil Appeal No. 6872 of 2018

Daily Limit Reached

You have reached your daily limit of 2 Free Judgements

Subscribe to CCI PRO for unlimited access

Why Upgrade to CCI PRO?
  • No Ads
  • WhatsApp Community
  • Daily E-Newsletter
  • Unlimited Judgements Access
  • Profile Visitors
  • Link Social Profiles
  • Featured Job Posts
  • Pro Badge
  • Expert GST Guidance
  • Unlimited Forum Replies
  • Download Content in PDF
1 Year PLAN
1999
(Excl. of GST ₹359)

BEST VALUE
2 Years PLAN
3499
(Excl. of GST ₹629)

3 Months PLAN
999
(Excl. of GST ₹179)

View all CCI PRO benefits

Already a PRO member? Login here for an ad-free experience.

 
Comments


Recent Judgments :

  1. CESTAT: Rajasthan Sales Tax Subsidy under RIPS 2010 Not includible in Excise Assessable Value
  2. CESTAT: Late Payment Charges in the Nature of Interest Not Taxable as Declared Service
  3. CESTAT: Educational Services Exempt Under Section 66D; Extended Period Cannot Be Invoked Without Wilful Suppression
  4. CESTAT: No Service Tax on Royalty under RCM if Mining Lease Was Executed Before 1 April 2016
  5. No pre-deposit required for filing appeal before the GSTAT against penalty-only orders where proceedings commenced prior to October 01 2025
  6. Refund cannot be withheld under Section 54(11) of the CGST Act merely because the Revenue contemplates filing an appeal
  7. Scope of Rectification under Section 161 of the CGST Act is Confined to Errors Apparent on the Face of Record
  8. Appellate Authority has no power to condone delay in filing appeal beyond the outer limit prescribed under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act
  9. CESTAT New Delhi: Sub-Contractor Separately Liable for Service Tax Regardless of Main Contractor's Discharge
  10. Cenvat Credit Cannot Be Denied Merely on Third-Party Statements Without Corroborative Evidence

View More Judgments »


Trending Online Classes

view all classess

CCI Pro
Meet our CAclubindia PRO Members
Pro Member Jayanti VisaniJayanti VisaniPro Member Arun BoradArun BoradPro Member MANOJ DASHMANOJ DASHPro Member madhu Reddymadhu ReddyPro Member saurabh sawlanisaurabh sawlani
Subscribe to Pro
Join an elite circle of professionals

Browse by Category




Latest Job Openings

View all
Company
04 September 2026
CA inter Or ca finalist

A Jaiswal and company

Lucknow

CA Final

View Details
Company
ARTICLESHIP 01 September 2026
Article Assistant

SGNG & Associates

New Delhi

CA Inter

View Details
Company
ARTICLESHIP 21 September 2026
CA Article Assistant

KK & Company Chartered Accountant

Pune

CA Inter

View Details
Company
09 September 2026
Chartered Accountant

Aviv Global Private Limited

Ahmedabad

CA

View Details
Company
28 August 2026
Audit Manager

K A R M & CO

Mumbai

CMA

View Details
Company
24 August 2026
Semi-Qualified CA/CA Finalist - Tax, GST, Audit & Accounts

Bharat Shah & Associates

Mumbai

CA Inter

View Details
Company
27 August 2026
ACCOUNTANT

CHARUPREETI & CO

Noida

Graduate (Any)

View Details
Company
ARTICLESHIP 24 August 2026
Chartered Accountant Articles

Rohit KC Jain & Co

New Delhi

CA Inter

View Details