As per case facts, a family dispute between two groups of the Modi family regarding asset division and company control led to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Clause 9 of ... the MOU stipulated that any disputes concerning its implementation would be referred to the Chairman, IFCI, whose decisions would be final and binding. Following the Chairman's decision, one group challenged it, filing an arbitration petition asserting it was an award and a parallel suit. The Single Judge ruled the decision was not an arbitration award and dismissed the petition, striking the suit's plaint as an abuse of process. This prompted appeals. The question arose whether Clause 9 of the MOU constituted an arbitration agreement and if the IFCI Chairman's decision was an arbitration award, and also if the parallel suit was an abuse of court process. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that the Chairman's decision was an expert determination, not an arbitration award, as the MOU aimed to prevent disputes and facilitate implementation, not to create a formal arbitration. The Chairman's approach, including expert consultation, affirmed this. Consequently, the arbitration petition was dismissed. While challenging the decision as an *award* in the suit was deemed an abuse of process, the suit was partially allowed to proceed for challenging the decision as a *decision*, provided proper grounds exist, leaving further examination to the trial court.