Three recitals strongly point towards an unambiguous intention of parties to refer their dispute(s) to Arbitration. Even though Clause 18 lacks certain essential characteristics, in a Development Agreement which otherwise fortifies intention of parties to Arbitrate, deficiency of words cannot legitimize annulment of an Arbitration Clause. Three-Judge Bench in Enercon (India) Ltd., (2014) 5 SCC 1 held, Court can legitimately supply missing lines when omission is obvious.

When Section 7 or any other provisions do not stipulate any particular form or requirements, it would not be appropriate for Court to gratuitously add impediments and desist from upholding validity of an Arbitration Agreement.

– Hon’ble Justice Surya Kant, Babanrao Rajaram Pund v. M/s. Samarth Builders & Developers, [Civil Appeal No. 6272 of 2022].

_____

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. IVRCL AMR Joint Venture, (2022) 20 SCC 636 held, mere use of the word ‘Arbitration’ in the Title of the Clause without any corresponding substantive part relating to Arbitration could not be considered a valid Arbitration Agreement under Section 7. The mere use of the word ‘Arbitration’ in a Clause of an Agreement is not clinching or decisive.

The exercise of legal drafting partakes equally of art, science and logic, but we fear Clause 8.28 does not seem to show allegiance to any.

– Hon’ble Justice Dipankar Datta, M/s. Alchemist Hospitals Ltd. v. M/s. ICT Health Technology Services India Pvt. Ltd., [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19647 of 2024] decided on 06.11.2025.