As per case facts...Multiple Municipal Corporations and private contractors entered Concession Agreements with a dispute resolution clause (Article 20) titled 'Mediation by Commissioner.' Disputes arose, and the contractors invoked Article ... 20, asserting it was an arbitration clause, while the Corporations argued it mandated only mediation. Two High Court judgments favored arbitration, and one rejected it. The Corporations appealed to the Supreme Court to settle the differing interpretations. The question arose...whether Article 20 of the Concession Agreements constituted a valid arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or merely prescribed a form of mediation/internal departmental review. Finally...the Supreme Court held that Article 20 is not a valid arbitration agreement, lacking the essential ingredients like a clear intent to arbitrate, party autonomy in appointing an impartial adjudicator, and fundamental adversarial procedures. The judgments that found it to be an arbitration clause were set aside, and the judgment that rejected arbitration was upheld.