2026 INSC 342 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026

(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 36889 OF 2025)

MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION

COMPANY LIMITED

(MSEDCL) & ORS. …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

R Z MALPANI …RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

J.K. MAHESHWARI, J .

1.Leave granted.

2.The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated

01.10.2025 of the Bombay High Court (hereinafter referred to as

“High Court”) in Arbitration Application (L) No. 1417 of 2025.

3.By the impugned order, the High Court disposed of the

application filed by the Respondent under Section 11 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as

“1996 Act”) and appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon

the disputes and differences between the parties.

1

REPORTABLE

FACTS

4.The Appellant, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution

Company Limited (MSEDCL) is a State Government company,

which is a fully-owned corporate entity owned by the Government

of Maharashtra. It is an electricity distribution utility which

distributes electricity throughout Maharashtra including a few

suburbs of Mumbai. The Respondent is a partnership firm

engaged in civil construction and other allied businesses.

5.The Appellant floated a Tender dated 11.08.2021 bearing

Code EEC/BND/TECH/42/21-22 for ‘Civil & Interior work –

Providing / renovating 134 CFC Centres at various O&M

Divisions of SEDCL throughout the State’. (hereinafter referred to

as the “Tender”) Total estimated cost of the tender was

₹17,41,37,020. The Tender document contained four different

constituents, being (i) Instructions to Tenderers & Qualifying

Criteria (ii) General Specifications (iii) Technical Specifications (iv)

Special Conditions of Contract. (collectively referred to as “Tender

documents”) The Tender documents also contained an

agreement pro-forma. The timeline for the tender process as per

the Tender documents was as follows:

2

Particulars Date / Time

Bid Start Date 15.07.2011, 13:00

Bid End Date 06.08.2021, 11:30

Techno-commercial Bid opening 18.08.2021, 15:00

Price Bid opening on Will be declared later

Winner Selection Date 18.08.2021, 15:30

6.The Respondent participated in the tender process and

submitted a bank guarantee of ₹17,45,100 valid up to

06.03.2022. Respondent then submitted its bid/quotation

against the said Tender with a validity of 120 days on

03.09.2021. Upon opening of the techno-commercial and price

bids, the Appellant, vide letter bearing No. CEC/CCO/Tech/350

dated 16.11.2022 (hereinafter referred to as “LOI”) accepted the

bid of the Respondent and entrusted the work under the said

tender process to the Respondent for a value of ₹17,76,19,699.

7.On 29.11.2022, the Respondent furnished a further bank

guarantee to the tune of ₹44,40,500 as security deposit valid up

to 27.05.2023. The Appellant wrote to the Respondent on

13.12.2022 requesting that bank guarantee be furnished on

stamp paper of ₹500 value instead of ₹100 and sent a reminder

in that respect on 31.12.2022. The Respondent submitted revised

3

bank guarantee on stamp paper with value of ₹500 on

31.01.2023.

8.On 02.02.2023, the Holding Company of the Appellant wrote

to the Executive Engineer of the Appellant seeking correction in

the forwarding letter of the bank guarantees. Pursuant thereto,

the Respondent sent a corrected forwarding letter with the bank

guarantees on 06.02.2023.

9.Thereafter, the Respondent sent various letters and

representations to the Appellant seeking issuance of a Work

Order in terms of the LOI, but no Work Order was issued by the

Appellant. On 08.08.2023, the Respondent submitted revised /

renewed bank guarantees as security deposit.

10.Despite repeated requests being made by the Respondent,

the Work Order was not issued by the Appellant and ultimately,

on 05.08.2024, the Respondent terminated the contract, citing

Appellant’s failure to hand over the sites for the work to begin.

Thereafter, on 30.08.2024, the Respondent issued a notice under

Clause 23 of the Special Conditions of Contract in the Tender

documents, seeking reference of the disputes to arbitration and

seeking compensation to the tune of ₹4,89,85,500.

4

11. On 27.09.2024, the Appellant formally cancelled the Tender

and EMD, Security Deposit submitted by the Respondent was

duly refunded on 24.10.2024. It is pertinent that the cancellation

itself was not challenged by the Respondent availing public law

remedies and instead, the Respondent chose to pursue its remedy

by means of arbitration under the Tender documents.

12.On 01.10.2024, the Respondent again invoked the

arbitration agreement contained in Clause 23 of the Special

Conditions of Contract in the Tender documents. On 04.11.2024,

the Appellant replied to the Respondent’s arbitration notice and

specifically stated therein that Tender documents along with LOI

are not sufficient to form a valid contract or arbitration

agreement. On 06.11.2024 and 03.12.2024, the Appellant

informed the Respondent that since the EMD and Security

Deposit has been refunded, no claims or dues are pending.

13.At this stage, the Respondent filed an application under

Section 11 of the 1996 Act before the High Court being

Arbitration Application No. 1417 of 2025, seeking appointment of

an arbitrator. Notice was issued by the High Court on 21.01.2025

and service was complete, but on 26.06.2025 and 17.07.2025,

5

the Appellant did not appear before the High Court. The High

Court vide the impugned ex-parte order on 01.10.2025 appointed

one Mr. Drupad Patil, Advocate as the Sole Arbitrator to

adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

FINDINGS OF THE HIGH COURT

14.The High Court found that the offer made by the

Respondent in response to the Tender was accepted by the LOI

dated 16.11.2022 which resulted in a duly concluded contract.

Existence of arbitration agreement can be discerned from

correspondence between the parties and the scope of enquiry in

Section 11 proceedings is limited to examining the existence of a

valid arbitration agreement. It was observed by the High Court

that Appellant in their reply to the arbitration notice has not

denied the existence of an arbitration agreement, hence directed

appointment of an arbitrator.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

15.Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel for the Appellants

has vehemently argued that there exists no concluded contract

between the parties, much less an arbitration agreement under

the meaning of Section 7 of the 1996 Act, and as such, the High

6

Court has erred in directing appointment of an arbitrator. He

submitted the impugned order is patently erroneous in recording

that the Appellant had not disputed the existence of an

arbitration agreement in their reply to the notice under Section

21 of the 1996 Act. Drawing our attention to the letter dated

04.11.2024 of the Appellant, it is stated that a specific plea was

taken about non-existence of arbitration agreement at the very

first instance by the Appellant. He further submitted that in the

absence of a concluded contract between the parties, there can

be no question of existence of an arbitration agreement complying

with Section 7 of the 1996 Act. In reference to the Tender

documents with the LOI, it is submitted that looking to the

material does not evince a concluded contract since the LOI itself

is contingent in nature, it provides that a detailed Work Order

and formal agreement was to follow and as such it is a precursor

to a contract and not the contract itself. He has placed reliance

on the recent judgement of this Court in State of Himachal

Pradesh and Anr. v. OASYS Cybernatics Pvt. Ltd.

1

and the

judgement of South Eastern Coalfields Limited and Ors. v. S.

Kumar’s Associates AKM (JV)

2

in support of this argument.

1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2536.

2 (2021) 9 SCC 166.

7

16.The Appellant has argued that, assuming arguendo, even if

the LOI is construed to be a contract creating legal relationship,

mere reference in the LOI to the terms of the Tender documents

would not have the effect of importing the arbitration clause as

contained therein. Further, learned senior counsel has drawn our

attention to the judgement of this Court in NBCC (India) Ltd. v.

Zillion Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd.

3

to submit that mere reference to

another document containing an arbitration clause is not

sufficient unless the arbitration clause is specifically incorporated

in the subsequent document. He has submitted, therefore, that

the instant appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order

passed by the High Court warrants interference by this Court.

17.Appearing for the Respondents, learned counsel Mr. Abhijit

A. Desai has argued with equal force that the instant appeal

warrants dismissal since an order appointing an arbitrator is

final and non-appealable as per Section 11(7) of the 1996 Act. He

submits that this Court in a special leave petition arising out of

such appointment, must exercise caution while interfering

against appointment of an arbitrator and the tribunal has the

jurisdiction to decide on its jurisdiction under Section 16 of the

3 (2024) 7 SCC 174.

8

1996 Act in light of the principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz. He has

submitted that the instant case is a feeble attempt at delaying

arbitration proceedings by the Appellant who has chosen not to

appear before the High Court despite adequate service of notice.

He has further argued that the existence of an arbitration

agreement is clear from a conjoint reading of: (i) Clause 23 of the

Special Conditions of the Tender documents; (ii) Respondent’s bid

dated 03.09.2021; (iii) LOI dated 16.11.2022 accepting the

Respondent’s bid. It is submitted that furnishing and repeated

renewal of bank guarantees by the Appellant, exchange of

correspondence regarding renewal of bank guarantees would

further show that there was a concluded contract between the

parties.

18.Since an arbitration agreement can be formed by exchange

of communication under Section 7(4)(b) of the 1996 Act, a

formally executed commercial contract is not necessary and

tender conditions containing an arbitration clause, once accepted

and acted upon, form a valid arbitration agreement under Section

7 of the 1996 Act. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the

judgement of this Court in Office for Alternative Architecture

9

v. Ircon Infrastructure and Services Ltd.

4

to argue that the

scope of scrutiny by the Court in an application under Section 11

of the 1996 Act is circumscribed by sub-section (6A) thereto and

as such, unnecessary judicial interference in arbitration

proceedings is not warranted. Since the question relates to

formation of the contract, it must be left to the arbitrator to

decide in an application under Section 16 of the 1996 Act as held

by this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University v. Anand

Coop. L/C Society Ltd.

5

Much emphasis has been laid on the

judgement of this Court in UNISSI (India) (P) Ltd. v. Post

Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research

6

to

argue that where the tender conditions contain an arbitration

clause and the tender has been acted upon by the parties, it

cannot be said that there existed no concluded contract and

consequently, no arbitration agreement. Lastly, it has been

submitted that cancellation of the tender itself does not

extinguish the arbitration agreement between the parties and the

said cancellation is a subject matter of arbitration. As such, he

has urged that the instant appeal warrants dismissal.

4 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1098.

5 (2007) 5 SCC 295.

6 (2009) 1 SCC 107.

10

ANALYSIS

19.After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having

gone through the documents on record, the short question which

falls for our consideration in the instant appeal is whether, on a

prima facie view, there exists an arbitration agreement between the

parties and as such, whether the reference to arbitration under

Section 11 by the High Court warrants interference by this Court?

20.The law on appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of

the 1996 Act has undergone windfall change in the recent years,

especially after the insertion of sub-section 6A therein w.e.f.

23.10.2015 which confines the Court’s jurisdiction to the

examination of existence of an arbitration agreement. Initially,

this Court in Vidya Drolia & Ors. v. Durga Trading

Corporation,

7

had developed what came to be known as the ‘ex-

facie’ test, holding in clear terms that while scope of judicial

review and interference by Courts at the Section 11 stage is

extremely limited, the Courts may interfere where it is ‘manifestly

7 (2021) 2 SCC 1.

11

and ex-facie certain that the arbitration agreement is non-

existent, invalid or the disputes are non-arbitrable’. The ‘eye of

the needle’ test was propounded by the judgement of this Court

in NTPC Ltd. v. SPML Infra Ltd.

8

to hold that limited scrutiny at

the pre-arbitral stage by the referral court through the ‘eye of the

needle’ must be done in order to protect the parties from being

forced to arbitrate a matter which is demonstrably non-arbitrable.

Subsequently, however, a co-ordinate bench of this Court in SBI

General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spg. ,

9

relying on the

seven-judge bench decision in Interplay Between Arbitration

Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899,

In re,

10

has held that the ‘ex-facie meritless’ and ‘eye of the

needle’ tests cannot be said to be in conformity with the

principles of modern arbitration and they would not apply after

the decision of the seven-judge bench, since even though they

endeavour to minimise judicial interference, yet require the

Courts to enter into a factual examination of contested facts and

evidence, however minimal. Relevant portion of the judgement in

SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. is quoted herein for reference:

8 (2023) 9 SCC 385.

9 (2024) 12 SCC 1.

10 (2024) 6 SCC 1.

12

“114. In view of the observations made by this Court in In

Re : Interplay (supra), it is clear that the scope of enquiry

at the stage of appointment of arbitrator is limited to the

scrutiny of prima facie existence of the arbitration

agreement, and nothing else. For this reason, we find it

difficult to hold that the observations made in Vidya Drolia

(supra) and adopted in NTPC v. SPML (supra) that the

jurisdiction of the referral court when dealing with the

issue of “accord and satisfaction” under Section 11

extends to weeding out ex-facie non -arbitrable and

frivolous disputes would continue to apply despite the

subsequent decision in In Re : Interplay (supra).

….

118. Tests like the “eye of the needle” and “ex-facie

meritless”, although try to minimise the extent of judicial

interference, yet they require the referral court to examine

contested facts and appreciate prima facie evidence

(however limited the scope of enquiry may be) and thus are

not in conformity with the principles of modern arbitration

which place arbitral autonomy and judicial non-

interference on the highest pedestal.”

21.As such, the pronouncement of this Court in SBI General

Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra) lays down a clear and comprehensive

explanation about the scope of examination at the stage of

Section 11 proceedings: it is limited to finding a prima facie

existence of arbitration agreement and nothing beyond it.

Questions of ‘accord and satisfaction’, limitation, dishonesty and

frivolity, arbitrability of the subject-matter are to be left to the

adjudication by the arbitral tribunal under Section 16 of the

1996 Act which is a reflection of the doctrine of ‘Kompetenz-

Kompetenz’ or ‘compétence de la compétence’. It is therefore

13

incumbent upon us to only examine the prima facie existence of

an arbitration agreement.

22.At the outset, it would be apposite to extract the arbitration

agreement purportedly contained in Clause 23 of the Special

Conditions of Contract in the Tender documents. It reads as

thus:

“23. Arbitration Clause:

a. The matters to be determine by the Chief Engineer:

All disputes and differences of any kind whatsoever

arising out of or in connection with the contract, whether

during the progress of the work or after its completion and

whether before or after the determination of the contract

shall be referred by the contractor to the C. E. and the C. E.

shall [within 120 days) after receipt of the contractor's

representation make and notify decisions of all matters

referred to by the contractor in writing.

b. Demand for Arbitration:

i)In the event of any dispute or difference between the

parties hereto as to the construction or operation of this

contract, or the respective rights and liabilities of the

parties on any matter in question, the dispute or difference

on any account or as to the withholding by M.S.E.D.C.LTD.

of any certificate to which the contractor may claim to be

entitled to or if the C. E. fails to make a decision (within

120 days), then and in any such case, the contractor (after

120 days) but within (180 days) of his presenting his final

claim on disputed matters, shall demand in writing that

the dispute or difference to be referred to arbitration.

ii)The demand for arbitration shall specify the matters

which are in question, or subject of the dispute or

difference as also the amount of claim item wise. Only

such dispute(s) or difference(s) in respect of which the

demand has been made, together with counter claims or

14

set off, shall be referred to arbitration and other matters

shall not be included in the reference.

a)The arbitration proceedings shall be assumed to

have commenced from the day, a written and valid

demand for arbitration is received by the Company.

b)The claimant shall submit his claim stating the

facts supporting the claims along with all relevant

documents and the relief or remedy sought against

each claim Within a period of 30 days from the date of

appointment of the Arbitral Tribunal.

c)The Company shall submit its defense statement

and counter claim(s), if any, within a period of 60 days

of receipt of copy of claims from the Tribunal thereafter

unless otherwise extension has been granted by the

Tribunal.

iii)No new claim shall be added during the proceedings by

either party. However, a party may amend or supplement

the original claim or defense thereof during the course of

arbitration proceedings subject to acceptance by Tribunal

having due regard to the delay in making it.

iv)If the contractor(s) does/do not prefer his/their specific

and final claims in writing, within a period of 90 days of

receiving the intimation from the Company, that the final

bill is ready for payment, he/they will be deemed to have

waived his/their claim(s) and the Company shall be

discharged and released of all liabilities under the contract

in respect of these claims.

c. Obligation during pendency of Arbitration:

Work under the contract shall, unless otherwise directed by

the Engineer, continue during the arbitration proceedings,

and no payment due or payable by the Company shall be

withheld on account of such proceedings, provided,

however, it shall be open for Arbitral Tribunal to consider

and decide whether or not such work should be continued

during arbitration proceedings.

15

In cases where the total value of all claims in question

added together does not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rs. One

Crore) the Arbitrate Tribunal shall consist of a Sole

Arbitrator who shall be either the C.E. of the Company or

serving or retired officer of the Company/Government not

below the grade of C.E. or equivalent nominated by the

Chairman of the Company in that behalf. The Sole

Arbitrator shall be appointed within 60 days from the day

when a written and valid demand for arbitration is

received by the Company.

i) In cases the value of the claim exceeds Rs.

1,00,00,000/- (Rs. One Crore) as above, the Arbitral

Tribunal shall consist of panel of 3 serving or retired

officers of M.S.E.D.C.LTD. /Govt not below the grade of

C.E./CA.O. as the Arbitrators. For this purpose, the

Company will send a panel of more than 3 names of

arbitrators of one or more department of the

Company/Govt. to the contractor who will be asked to

suggest to the Chairman at least 2 names for appointment

as contractor's nominee. The Chairman shall appoint at

least one of them as the contractor's nominee and will also

appoint the balance number of arbitrators either from the

panel or from outside the panel, duly indicating the

presiding arbitrator from amongst the three [3) arbitrators

so appointed. While nominating arbitrators, it will be

necessary to ensure that one of them is or has worked in

Accounts department.

ii)If one or more arbitrators appointed as above refuses to

act as arbitrator, withdraws from his office as arbitrator or

vacates his/their office/offices or is/are unable or

unwilling to perform his functions as arbitrator for any

reason whatsoever or dies or in the opinion of the

Chairman fails to act without undue delay. The Chairman

shall appoint new arbitrators to act in his/their place in the

same manner in which the earlier arbitrator/s had been

appointed. Such reconstituted Tribunal, may, as its

discretion proceed with the reference from the stage at

which it was left by the previous arbitrator(s).

iii)The Tribunal shall have powers to call for such evidence

by way of affidavits or otherwise as the Arbitral Tribunal

16

shall think proper, and it shall be the duty of the parties

hereto to do or cause to be done all such things as may be

necessary to enable the Arbitral Tribunal to make the

award without any delay.

iv)While appointing arbitrator(s) as above, due care shall

be taken that he/they is/are not the one/those who had

an opportunity to deal with the matters to which the

contract relates or who in the course of his/their duties as

Company's servant(s) expressed views on all or any of the

matters under dispute or differences. The proceedings or

the Arbitral Tribunal or the award made by such Tribunal

will, however, not be invalid merely for the reason that one

or more arbitrator had, in the course of his service,

opportunity to deal with the matters to which the contract

relates or who in the course of his/their duties expressed

views on all or any of the matters under dispute.

v)Arbitral award shall state item wise, the sum and

reasons upon which it is based.

vi)A party may apply for corrections of any computational

errors, any typographical or clerical errors or any other

error of similar nature occurring in the award and

interpretation of specific point of award to tribunal within

30 days of receipt of the award.

vii) A party may apply to Tribunal within 30 days of

receipt of award to make an additional award as to claims

presented in the arbitral proceedings, but omitted from the

arbitral award.

viii)In case of the Tribunal, comprising of three

members any ruling or award shall be made by a majority

of Members of Tribunal. In the absence of such a majority,

the views of the Presiding Arbitrator shall prevail.

ix)Where the arbitral award is for payment of money, no

interest shall be payable on whole or any part of the

money for any period till the date on which the award is

made.

x)The cost of the arbitration shall be borne equally by the

respective parties. The cost shall inter-alia include fees of

the arbitrators as per the rates fixed by the Company from

17

time to time. Provided that the fees payable per arbitrator

for claims up to Rs. One Crore, shall not exceed Rs. 2000/-

per sitting subject to a maximum of Rs. 25,000/- and the

fees payable per arbitrator for claims over Rs. One Crore,

shall not exceed Rs. 2000/- per sitting subject to a

maximum of Rs. 50,000/-. Provided further that the

arbitrators who are in service of Govt/M.S.E.D.C. LTD.

shall draw fees at half of the rates mentioned above.

xi)Company shall maintain a list of arbitrators. The

Chairman shall have full powers to delete or add the name

of the arbitrators in the list or to make amendments to the

said list as per his discretion.

xii) The arbitral proceedings should be completed and

the award be finalized within one year ff om the date of

appointment of arbitrators.

xiii)Subject to the provisions as aforesaid, Arbitration

& Conciliation Act,1996 and the rules there under, and any

statutory notification thereof shall apply to the arbitration

proceedings under this clause.”

23.The ‘Instructions to Tenderers’ contained in the Tender

documents at Clause 23 provides that the successful tenderer

will have to execute an agreement with the Company (Appellant)

in the Company’s standard proforma. It reads as thus:

“23.0 The successful tenderer will also have to execute an

agreement with the Company in Company’s standard

proforma. The cost of stamp paper shall be borne by the

contractor. (The value of Stamp paper for agreement is Rs.

500/- up to ten lakh Plus RS. 100 for every one lakh or

part there of above Rs Ten Lacks)”

24.Clause 42 of the ‘Instructions to Tenderers’ contained in the

Tender documents provides that in case the work is cancelled

18

before starting the work for any reason after placement of work

order, only E.M.D. / S.D. shall be refunded and no other claim in

this respect shall be entertained. Clause 39 of the ‘Instructions to

Tenderers’ in the Tender documents provides that the

‘Instructions to Tenderers’ shall form part of the contract.

25.The entire thrust of the argument of the Respondent is that

the arbitration clause contained in Clause 23 of the Special

Conditions of Contract in the Tender documents has been

incorporated in the contract which has been concluded by the

Appellant’s LOI dated 16.11.2022. The LOI references the Tender

documents and in the initial paragraphs, provides that the terms

and conditions of the contract as per the reference documents

shall be interpreted by reading together with them the terms of

the LOI itself and in case of conflict, the terms of the LOI shall

prevail. The said portion of the LOI is quoted herein for reference:

“…

With reference to the above, on behalf of MSEDCL tender

No. EEC/BND/TECH/T-42/2021-22 is invited for providing

/ renovating the CFC center at various O&M Division of

MSEDCL throughout the State vide E-Tender Notice PR No.

295/2021 dt. 14.7.2021. In this regards the undersigned

is pleased to inform you that your offer for the above work

covered under the scope of Schedule-B of the said tender

has been accepted and work covered under the scope of

19

the contract is entrusted to you subject to the following

terms and conditions.

Notwithstanding that reference are given above, the terms

and conditions and specifications of contract shall be

interpreted by reading together the terms and conditions,

specifications and contents of this Letter of intent as below.

In case of any deviations with the contents of this Letter of

intent from corresponding conditions in the above said

tender specifications or contents of the letter under

reference as read and interpreted up to date, the contents

of this Letter of intent shall prevail.”

26.In the concluding portion of the LOI, it is stated that the LOI

has been issued to the Respondent to start with preliminaries

and to start the work on the issuance of the detailed work order.

The said portion of the LOI is quoted herein for reference:

“…

This letter of intent is issued to enable you to start with

preliminaries to start the work as soon as the detailed

work order is issued.

..."

27.It is the admitted case of the parties that pursuant to the

LOI and in terms of Clause 23 of the ‘Instructions to Tenderers’ of

the Tender documents, neither any work order was issued to the

Respondent nor any formal agreement was entered into between

the parties on the proforma of the Appellant. It is therefore

required to be examined as to whether any agreement to arbitrate

20

has formed at this stage in order to meet the requirement of

Section 7 of the 1996 Act. The said section is relevant for this

purpose and is therefore quoted below for reference:

“7. Arbitration Agreement:

(1) In this Part, ‘arbitration agreement’ means an

agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all or

certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise

between them in respect of a defined legal relationship,

whether contractual or not.

(2) An arbitration agreement may be in the form of an

arbitration clause in a contract or in the form of a separate

agreement.

(3) An arbitration agreement shall be in writing.

(4) An arbitration agreement is in writing if it is contained

in –

(a) a document signed by the parties;

(b) an exchange of letters, telex, telegrams or other

means of telecommunications including communication

through electronic means which provide a record of the

agreement; or

(c) an exchange of statement of claim and defence in

which the existence of the agreement is alleged by one

party and not denied by the other.

(5) The reference in a contract to a document containing an

arbitration clause constitutes an arbitration agreement if

the contract is in writing and the reference is such as to

make that arbitration clause part of the contract.”

28.Section 7(1) of the 1996 Act posits that there must be a

defined ‘legal relationship’ between the parties and the agreement

to arbitrate may be contractual or not. As such, conclusion of a

contract might not be necessary for that purpose and what needs

21

to be seen is whether the parties were ad idem in their intention

to refer a dispute to arbitration as evinced from their

communication.

11

A distinction, however, is drawn when the

arbitration agreement is contained in some document which is

sought to be incorporated within another. Section 7(5) is

attracted in such a situation and it refers to the incorporation of

an arbitration agreement contained in some document into a

‘contract’ which has to be in writing. The use of the word

‘contract’ when dealing with incorporation of an arbitration

agreement from some other document is intentional and

consequential. Since in the present appeal the Respondent’s case

is that the LOI incorporates the arbitration agreement from the

terms of the Tender documents, both the contractual nature of

the LOI as well as the validity of incorporation becomes relevant

for our examination.

29.In this context, at the very threshold it must be observed

that the finding of the High Court that Appellant in its reply

dated 04.11.2024 to the Respondent’s arbitration notice ‘did not

question the formation of arbitration agreement on any ground

other than the fact that the project did not proceed further’ is prima

11 Govind Rubber Ltd. v. Louis Dreyfus Commodities Asia (P) Ltd. , (2015) 13 SCC 477.

22

facie erroneous and stares at the face of the record, and is liable

to be set aside. It has been contended in plain terms by the

Appellant in its reply dated 04.11.2024 that there was no

concluded contract between the parties and that the LOI cannot

bind either party to a contract, it is merely indicative of a party’s

intention to enter into a contract. There is, therefore, no

admission of any concluded contract, much less an arbitration

agreement between the parties by the Appellant in its reply dated

04.11.2024. The Appellant has throughout maintained that there

was no concluded contract between the parties and as such, no

reference to arbitration can be made under Clause 23 of Special

Conditions of Contract contained in the Tender documents

merely because of a general reference to the Tender documents in

the LOI.

30.A co-ordinate bench of this Court in OASYS Cybernatics

(Supra) has exhaustively discussed the effect of a letter of intent

pursuant to a tender, its legal character and the nature of rights

flowing therefrom. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgement are

quoted herein for reference:

“11. The first issue that falls for our determination

concerns the legal character of the LoI dated 02.09.2022

23

and the nature of rights, if any, accrued to the Respondent-

company thereunder.

12. This question goes to the root of the matter, and is not

one of mere semantics, i.e. ascertaining whether the

issuance of the LoI created a concluded contract capable of

enforcement, or whether it remained a conditional and

inchoate expression of intent, leaving the Government free

to reassess its position prior to formal acceptance. The

answer defines the legal threshold for the Appellant-State's

power to cancel and the Respondent-company's entitlement

to protection.

13. The jurisprudence on the subject is neither nascent nor

unsettled. A catena of decisions starting from Rajasthan

Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. v. Maha Laxmi Mingrate

Marketing Service (P) Ltd., through Dresser Rand

S.A. v. Bindal Agro Chem Ltd., to Level 9 Biz Pvt. Ltd. v. HP

Housing & Urban Development Authority, this Court has

consistently held that an LoI is, in the ordinary course, a

precursor to a contract and not the contract itself.

14. In Dresser Rand (supra), it was re-stated with clarity

that “a letter of intent merely indicates a party's

intention to enter into a contract with the other

party in future. A letter of intent is not intended to

bind either party ultimately to enter into any

contract.” The same principle animated Rajasthan

Cooperative Dairy Federation (supra), where this Court

observed that until the offer is accepted unconditionally

and the preconditions are satisfied, “no binding legal

relationship” comes into existence. The rationale is thus

simple but fundamental: the law of contract distinguishes

between a promise to make a promise and a promise

performed. The former is not legally binding until its

contingencies are fulfilled.

15. These authorities collectively articulate a coherent

doctrine: an LoI creates no vested right until it passes the

threshold of final and unconditional acceptance. It is but a

“promise in embryo,” capable of maturing into a contract

only upon the satisfaction of stipulated preconditions or

upon the issue of an LoA. A bidder's expectation that such

a contract will follow may be commercially genuine, but it

24

is not a juridical entitlement. To hold otherwise would be to

bind the State in contract before it has consciously chosen

to be bound—a proposition foreign to both contract law and

public administration.

16. Turning then to the LoI before us, its conditionality is

beyond doubt. As noticed heretofore in para 5.7, it

required the Respondent-company to:

(i) undertake compatibility testing of its proposed ePoS

devices at NICSI, Hyderabad;

(ii) provide a live demonstration of the devices with NIC's

application before the Directorate at Shimla;

(iii) execute a formal agreement only after successful

completion of the aforesaid steps; and

(iv) furnish a detailed MRP and landing cost of the

devices and their major components.

17. Each requirement was framed as a condition

precedent; the LoI itself stated that a “final award letter”

would issue only after the successful completion of these

tasks. This language admits of no ambiguity. The tender

architecture was sequential: testing, demonstration,

acceptance, then execution. It was never contemplated that

the LoI would operate as the contract itself.

18. The cumulative effect of the foregoing analysis is that

the LoI was no more than a provisional communication

signifying the Appellant-State's intent to enter into a formal

arrangement upon fulfilment of certain technical and

procedural conditions. The acceptance of tender and the

consequential formation of a binding contract were

contingent upon satisfaction of these prerequisites. The

Respondent-company's reliance upon the LoI as a source of

vested contractual rights is, therefore, wholly misplaced.

19. As a result, the First Issue is answered in the

negative. We have no difficulty in holding that the LoI did

not give rise to any binding or enforceable rights in favour

of the Respondent-company.”

31.It is settled law that a letter of intent does not, in and of

itself, create a legal relationship or contractual obligations until

25

there is a clear, unambiguous final acceptance by the parties. It

is an expression of one party’s intent to enter into a contract with

the other party in the forthcoming future. When the intent of the

parties can be evinced from the letter of intent or the tender

specifications and it is clear that the letter of intent is to be

followed by a final award or a concluded agreement, it cannot be

said that the letter of intent itself binds the parties to the terms

of the tender. Contractual obligations cannot be foisted upon a

party without a clear indication of its intent to enter into a

binding concluded contract. Therefore, what needs to be

distinguished is whether the intent of the parties is to make a

‘promise’ or a ‘promise to make a promise’. We are mindful of the

fact that a tender is essentially in the nature of an ‘invitation to

offer’ and submission of a bid by the tenderer is an ‘offer’. By

means of a letter of intent, however, it must be examined by the

Court whether the party extending the letter of intent is in

consensus ad idem with the other party and intends to create a

conclusive and binding agreement.

32.Further, in South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (Supra), this

Court held that the question as to whether a contract had been

26

concluded between the parties can be discerned by the notice

inviting tender, the letter of intent and the conduct of parties.

Relevant paragraph of the said judgement is quoted herein for

reference:

“22. We would like to state the issue whether a concluded

contract had been arrived at inter se the parties is in turn

dependent on the terms and conditions of the NIT, the Lol

and the conduct of the parties. The judicial views before us

leave little doubt over the proposition that an Lol merely

indicates a party's intention to enter into a contract with

the other party in future. No binding relationship between

the parties at this stage emerges and the totality of the

circumstances have to be considered in each case. It is no

doubt possible to construe a letter of intent as a binding

contract if such an intention is evident from its terms. But

then the intention to do so must be clear and unambiguous

as it takes a deviation from how normally a letter of intent

has to be understood. This Court did consider in Dresser

Rand S.A. case that there are cases where a detailed

contract is drawn up later on account of anxiety to start

work on an urgent basis. In that case it was clearly stated

that the contract will come into force upon receipt of letter

by the supplier, and yet on a holistic analysis - it was held

that the Lol could not be interpreted as a work order.”

33.Applying the said principles of law to the facts of this case,

we are in agreement with the argument of the Appellant that the

LOI in the facts of the instant case was a promise to make a

promise and not a promise itself and no agreement had

concluded between the parties. The word ‘contract’ as defined in

Clause 1(c) of the Special Conditions contained in the Tender

27

documents is ‘the document forming Notice Inviting Tenders,

Tender Form, General Conditions of Contract, Technical

Specifications, priced schedule of items, contract agreement and

drawings and any other document which may be included at the

time of signing of contract agreement along with acceptance of the

contract thereof together’. This definition incorporates the tender

framework under Clause 23 of the ‘Instructions to Tenderers’ of

the Tender documents, which posits that an agreement will be

entered into by the Appellant with the successful bidder.

34.The LOI provided that the work under the contract is

entrusted to the Respondent subject to terms and conditions and

as per clause 2 of the LOI, the time-limit to complete the entire

work was six months from the date of handing over of the sites.

Pertinently, the Appellant never handed over the sites to the

Respondent. Clause 3 provided that security deposit to the tune

of 5% of order value, being ₹88,81,000 must be deposited by

means of demand draft or F.D.R. or B.G. of any nationalized bank

within 10 days from the date of receipt of LOI. Alternatively, 50%

of the security deposit, amounting to ₹44,40,500 shall be

deposited in the said form and the balance amount of ₹44,40,500

28

may be deducted from the R.A. bill. Clause 7 of the LOI provides

for the requirement to obtain insurance in specific form as

mentioned therein. At the end of the LOI, it is mentioned that the

LOI has been issued to enable the Respondent to start with the

preliminaries so that work may be initiated as soon as the work

order is issued. It contemplates a work order to be issued at a

subsequent stage.

35.Neither the specifications of the Tender documents, nor the

LOI provides that the LOI itself would result in a concluded

contract. Rather, the Tender documents in Clause 23 of the

‘Instructions to Tenderers’ specifically provides for an agreement

to be entered into between the Appellant and the successful

tenderer and same is the import of Clause 1(c) defining the word

‘contract’. The intent behind the LOI is explicitly clarified as

merely to ensure that preliminaries are complied with so that the

work may begin upon issuance of a work order. No such work

order was issued pursuant to the LOI. On this count, it is

stressed by the Respondent that it had submitted the requisite

security deposit by means of bank guarantees and they were

renewed from time to time. However, neither the LOI nor the

29

Tender documents contemplate that upon submission of bank

guarantees, the contract would be said to be concluded, creating

a binding legal relationship. Rather, they both contemplate the

issuance of a work order and the signing of an agreement; mere

completion of preliminaries cannot be said to be sufficient to form

a binding legal relationship unless specified in the terms of the

tender specifications. From a reading of the LOI, the clauses

relating to submission of security deposit and insurance clearly

show the tender framework, where after acceptance of the bid,

work was entrusted to the Respondent subject to terms and

conditions which were procedural in nature, contemplating that

at a later stage, a final work order was to be issued and an

agreement was to be entered into between the parties.

36.In the above conspectus of facts, from a holistic reading of

the Tender documents, the LOI and other subsequent

communication between the parties, the LOI does not evince the

commercial intention of the Appellant to create a binding legal

relationship, it informs the Respondent that the work was

entrusted to them upon opening of bids and lays down

preliminary conditions to be fulfilled in contemplation of a future

30

work order and agreement in order to ensure that prior to the

work order being issued, everything is set in place and the work

may begin at once upon such issuance. As such, it cannot be

said that the LOI had the effect of creating a binding legal

relationship between the parties.

37.In the instant case, the Appellant argues further that even

assuming arguendo that the LOI itself can be considered a source

of binding legal relationship between the parties, the LOI has

made a general reference to the Tender documents and such a

general reference cannot have the effect of ‘incorporation’ of the

arbitration clause contained therein, in light of Section 7(5) of the

1996 Act. Section 7(5) provides that ‘The reference in a contract to

a document containing an arbitration clause constitutes an

arbitration agreement if the contract is in writing and the reference

is such as to make that arbitration clause part of the contract.’.

38. Reference in this respect has also been made to the

judgement of this Court in NBCC (India) Ltd. (Supra). In the said

judgement, this Court dealt with facts which are somewhat

similar to the instant appeal; the arbitration clause was

contained in the ‘Request for Proposal’ in the tender documents

31

and the contract was awarded to the Respondent therein by

means of issuance of a letter of intent which made the terms and

conditions of the said tender documents applicable to the letter of

intent as well. This Court drew a distinction between ‘reference’

and ‘incorporation’ of an arbitration clause, and after discussing

the decisions in M.R. Engineers & Contractors (P) Ltd. v. Som

Datt Builders Ltd.,

12

and Inox Wind Ltd. v. Thermocables

Ltd.,

13

found that the arbitration clause contained in some

document may be incorporated in the contract between the

parties only by a specific reference to the arbitration clause. The

intent of the parties to incorporate the arbitration clause has to

be explicitly clear and a mere general ‘reference’ to the tender

conditions would not suffice. Relevant paragraphs of the said

judgement are quoted herein for reference:

“16. The issue is no more res integra. The provisions of

sub-section (5) of Section 7 of the Arbitration Act have been

considered by this Court in M.R. Engineers &

Contractors [M.R. Engineers & Contractors (P) Ltd. v. Som

Datt Builders Ltd., (2009) 7 SCC 696 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ)

271] . After considering the relevant passages from Russell

on Arbitration and various English judgments, this Court

held thus : (SCC p. 707, para 24)

“24. The scope and intent of Section 7(5) of the Act may

therefore be summarised thus—

12 (2009) 7 SCC 696.

13 (2018) 2 SCC 519.

32

(i) An arbitration clause in another document, would get

incorporated into a contract by reference, if the following

conditions are fulfilled;

(1) the contract should contain a clear reference to

the documents containing arbitration clause,

(2) the reference to the other document should

clearly indicate an intention to incorporate the

arbitration clause into the contract,

(3) the arbitration clause should be appropriate,

that is capable of application in respect of

disputes under the contract and should not be

repugnant to any term of the contract.

(ii) When the parties enter into a contract, making a

general reference to another contract, such general

reference would not have the effect of incorporating the

arbitration clause from the referred document into the

contract between the parties. The arbitration clause from

another contract can be incorporated into the contract

(where such reference is made), only by a specific

reference to arbitration clause.

(iii) Where a contract between the parties provides that

the execution or performance of that contract shall be in

terms of another contract (which contains the terms and

conditions relating to performance and a provision for

settlement of disputes by arbitration), then, the terms of

the referred contract in regard to execution/performance

alone will apply, and not the arbitration agreement in

the referred contract, unless there is special reference to

the arbitration clause also.

(iv) Where the contract provides that the standard form

of terms and conditions of an independent trade or

professional institution (as for example the standard

terms and conditions of a trade association or architects

association) will bind them or apply to the contract, such

standard form of terms and conditions including any

provision for arbitration in such standard terms and

conditions, shall be deemed to be incorporated by

33

reference. Sometimes the contract may also say that the

parties are familiar with those terms and conditions or

that the parties have read and understood the said

terms and conditions.

(v) Where the contract between the parties stipulates

that the conditions of contract of one of the parties to the

contract shall form a part of their contract (as for

example the general conditions of contract of the

Government where the Government is a party), the

arbitration clause forming part of such general

conditions of contract will apply to the contract between

the parties.”

17. It could thus be seen that this Court has held that

when the parties enter into a contract, making a general

reference to another contract, such general reference would

not have the effect of incorporating the arbitration clause

from the referred document into the contract between the

parties. It has been held that the arbitration clause from

another contract can be incorporated into the contract

(where such reference is made), only by a specific reference

to arbitration clause. It has further been held that where a

contract between the parties provides that the execution or

performance of that contract shall be in terms of another

contract (which contains the terms and conditions relating

to performance and a provision for settlement of disputes

by arbitration), then, the terms of the referred contract in

regard to execution/performance alone will apply, and not

the arbitration agreement in the referred contract, unless

there is special reference to the arbitration clause also.

18. This Court further held that where the contract

provides that the standard form of terms and conditions of

an independent trade or professional institution will bind

them or apply to the contract, such standard form of terms

and conditions including any provision for arbitration in

such standard terms and conditions, shall be deemed to

be incorporated by reference. It has been held that

sometimes the contract may also say that the parties are

familiar with those terms and conditions or that the parties

have read and understood the said terms and conditions.

It has also been held that where the contract between the

34

parties stipulates that the conditions of contract of one of

the parties to the contract shall form a part of their

contract, the arbitration clause forming part of such general

conditions of contract will apply to the contract between the

parties.

19. A perusal of sub-section (5) of Section 7 of the

Arbitration Act itself would reveal that it provides for a

conscious acceptance of the arbitration clause from another

document, by the parties, as a part of their contract, before

such arbitration clause could be read as a part of the

contract between the parties.

20. It is thus clear that a reference to the document in the

contract should be such that shows the intention to

incorporate the arbitration clause contained in the

document into the contract.

21. The law laid down in M.R. Engineers &

Contractors [M.R. Engineers & Contractors (P) Ltd. v. Som

Datt Builders Ltd., (2009) 7 SCC 696 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ)

271] has been followed by this Court in Duro Felguera,

S.A. v. Gangavaram Port Ltd. [Duro Felguera,

S.A. v. Gangavaram Port Ltd., (2017) 9 SCC 729 : (2017) 4

SCC (Civ) 764] and Elite Engg. & Construction (Hyd.) (P)

Ltd. v. Techtrans Construction India (P) Ltd. [Elite Engg. &

Construction (Hyd.) (P) Ltd. v. Techtrans Construction India

(P) Ltd., (2018) 4 SCC 281 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 60]

22. No doubt that this Court in Inox Wind

Ltd. v. Thermocables Ltd. [Inox Wind Ltd. v. Thermocables

Ltd., (2018) 2 SCC 519 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 195] has

distinguished the law laid down in M.R. Engineers &

Contractors [M.R. Engineers & Contractors (P) Ltd. v. Som

Datt Builders Ltd., (2009) 7 SCC 696 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ)

271] . In the said case (i.e. Inox Wind [Inox Wind

Ltd. v. Thermocables Ltd., (2018) 2 SCC 519 : (2018) 2

SCC (Civ) 195] ), this Court has held that though general

reference to an earlier contract is not sufficient for

incorporation of an arbitration clause in the later contract,

a general reference to a standard form would be enough for

incorporation of the arbitration clause. Though this Court

in Inox Wind [Inox Wind Ltd. v. Thermocables Ltd., (2018) 2

35

SCC 519 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 195] agrees with the

judgment in M.R. Engineers & Contractors [M.R. Engineers

& Contractors (P) Ltd. v. Som Datt Builders Ltd., (2009) 7

SCC 696 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 271] , it holds that general

reference to a standard form of contract of one party along

with those of trade associations and professional bodies

will be sufficient to incorporate the arbitration clause. In

the said case (i.e. Inox Wind [Inox Wind

Ltd. v. Thermocables Ltd., (2018) 2 SCC 519 : (2018) 2

SCC (Civ) 195] ), this Court found that the purchase order

was issued by the appellant therein in which it was

categorically mentioned that the supply would be as per

the terms mentioned therein and in the attached standard

terms and conditions. The respondent therein by his letter

had confirmed its acceptance. This Court found that the

case before it was a case of a single contract and not two-

contract case and, therefore, held that the arbitration

clause as mentioned in the terms and conditions would be

applicable.

23. The present case is a “two-contract” case and not a

“single-contract” case.

…

29. As already discussed hereinabove, when there is a

reference in the second contract to the terms and conditions

of the first contract, the arbitration clause would not ipso

facto be applicable to the second contract unless there is a

specific mention/reference thereto.

30. We are of the considered view that the present case is

not a case of “incorporation” but a case of “reference”. As

such, a general reference would not have the effect of

incorporating the arbitration clause. In any case, Clause

7.0 of the LoI, which is also a part of the agreement,

makes it amply clear that the redressal of the dispute

between NBCC and the respondent has to be only through

civil courts having jurisdiction of Delhi alone.”

39.Although this Court in NBCC (India) Ltd. (Supra) was

dealing with a factual situation which was quite similar to the

36

instant case, the reasons why the Court interfered with the

appointment of an arbitrator in the said case were twofold. Apart

from the fact that a general reference in the letter of intent to an

arbitration clause contained in the tender documents was found

to not be sufficient for its incorporation, the second reason was

that the letter of intent in that case had a separate dispute

resolution clause which limited redressal of disputes to civil

courts having jurisdiction of Delhi alone. Even then, the law laid

down in respect of incorporation of arbitration clauses contained

in tender documents by means of reference in the letter of intent

is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. The LOI in

the instant case makes a reference to the Tender documents

contained in the following terms:

“Notwithstanding that reference are given above, the terms

and conditions and specifications of contract shall be

interpreted by reading together the terms and conditions,

specifications and contents of this Letter of intent as below.

In case of any deviations with the contents of this Letter of

intent from corresponding conditions in the above said

tender specifications or contents of the letter under

reference as read and interpreted up to date, the contents

of this Letter of intent shall prevail.”

In our view, this is a case of ‘reference’ and not ‘incorporation’.

There is no mention of any arbitration or dispute resolution

37

clause in the LOI itself, neither does it purport specific

incorporation thereof from the tender documents. As such, the

arbitration clause contained in the Tender documents could not

be said to have been incorporated in the LOI to evince the

existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties on its

conjoint reading with the Tender documents.

40.The judgements of this Court in NBCC (India) Ltd. (Supra)

as well as M.R. Engineers & Contractors (P) Ltd. (Supra) were

recently discussed and distinguished on facts by a co-ordinate

bench of this Court in Glencore International AG v. Shree

Ganesh Metals

14

. In the facts of that case, there was no

incorporation of the arbitration agreement, but rather the

contract containing the arbitration agreement was never signed

by the parties, but it was acted upon and the communication

between the parties evinced the creation of a binding legal

relationship between them. In such context, the Court placed

reliance on the judgement in Govind Rubber Ltd. (Supra) and

held that non-signing of the contract containing the arbitration

agreement cannot invalidate the arbitration agreement which is

in writing and the parties seem to be ad idem in respect of the

14 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1815.

38

agreement by communication about the contract. The judgement

in Glencore International AG (Supra) is not applicable to the

facts of this case since it distinguishes the judgement in NBCC

(India) Ltd. (Supra) where the factual scenario was quite similar

to the facts of the instant appeal.

41.Similar is the case of the judgement in UNISSI (India) (P)

Ltd. (Supra) relied upon by the Appellant where the tender

documents contained an arbitration clause and the tender offer

of the Appellant therein was accepted and the Appellant therein

acted upon the said acceptance and made supply of oxymeters

required under the tender even though no formal contract was

signed between the parties. In such context, the Court held that

the arbitration agreement contained in the tender was applicable

and dispute between the parties ought to be referred to an

arbitrator. In the facts of the present case, the terms of the tender

itself have never been worked upon by the Respondent. The Work

Order was never issued by the Appellant and the sites were never

handed over by the Appellant. The Respondent has submitted

bank guarantees pursuant to the LOI, which at best is a

preliminary requirement as a precursor to the Work Order being

39

issued. As discussed above, the LOI in the instant case was

indicative of a preliminary document in course of the contract

and was not intended to be an end-all-be-all contract between the

parties, it did not create contractual obligations or legal

relationship between them.

42.It goes without saying that the scope of inquiry at the stage

of Section 11 is extremely limited and only pertains to an

examination about prima facie existence of an arbitration

agreement. Judicial non-interference in the arbitration process is

the sacrosanct principle which guides alternative dispute

resolution and Courts must be highly circumspect in interfering

at the referral stage, especially since there is no appeal available

in the 1996 Act against an order under Section 11. The Arbitral

Tribunal, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 16 must be

left to decide on its jurisdiction. The Courts should follow the

principle of ‘When in doubt, do refer’ and lean towards referring

matters to arbitration when the arbitration agreement is prima

facie existent. However, it is only in the rarest of rare cases where

even on a prima facie view, without going into disputed facts

between the parties, there appears to be no existence of

40

arbitration agreement between the parties, the Court can reject

the application for appointment of an arbitrator and reference of

the parties to arbitration. The instant case appears to be a fit

case where, as discussed, even without going into the disputed

facts and merely on a prima facie view of the matter, there is no

existence of arbitration agreement and therefore, the decision of

the High Court to appoint an arbitrator requires interference.

43.As an upshot of the above discussion, the instant appeal

deserves to be allowed and the order impugned passed by the

High Court stands set aside. The Respondent is given the liberty

to pursue other alternative remedies in accordance with law, if

any, available to it. All interim application(s) shall be treated to be

disposed of.

.…..………………………….J.

(J.K. MAHESHWARI)

.…..………………………….J.

(ATUL S. CHANDURKAR)

NEW DELHI;

APRIL 09, 2026.

41