India: "May", "Can" & 'Shall Have The Right' In Arbitration Clause – The Legal Position Under The Arbitration Law Of India

Last Updated: 17 September 2014
Article by Vijay Pal Dalmia, Partner

Article by Vijay Pal Dalmia, Advocate, Supreme Court of India and Delhi High Court, Partner & Head of Intellectual Property Laws Division, Vaish Associates Advocates, India with able assistance of  Ms. Shreyosi Pal, 5thyear, B.A., LL.B. (Hons.), Amity Law School, Noida.

The universally acceptable legal position is that once there is an arbitration clause in an agreement, the same shall be referred to arbitration. However, it seems that under the present law, as interpreted by the various High courts and the Supreme Court of India, a legal position which may be a bottleneck for resolution of disputes by way of arbitral proceedings has been propounded. From the discussion below, it will be clear that the nuances of language have taken over precedence over the possible intent of the parties to resolve their disputes by way of Arbitration, thereby damaging the dynamism of The (Indian) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The interpretations given by the Indian courts, whose verdicts are equivalent to the law of land, to the words like "MAY", "CAN" AND "SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT", appear to be hyper-technical. In any case as already mentioned above, the interpretations given by the various Indian High Courts and the Supreme Court of India are, as of now, the law of the land. These decisions also highlight the need to carefully draft the arbitration clauses in the agreements, as at times use of a loose word like "MAY", "CAN" AND "SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT" may be fatal to the real intent of the parties to the agreement. Howsoever, careful one may be, still one cannot rule out the judicial scrutiny and interpretation of such words, at a distant later stage of disputes.

In the cases titled K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi]1 ; Bharat Bhushan Bansal v. U.P. Small Industries Corpn. Ltd.2 ; Bihar State Mineral Development Corpn. v. Encon Builders (I) (P) Ltd.3 ; and State of Orissa v. Damodar Das4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had the occasion to refer to the attributes or essential elements of an arbitration agreement and held that a clause in a contract can be construed as an "arbitration agreement" only if an agreement to refer disputes or differences to arbitration is expressly or impliedly spelt out from the clause. It was observed that the intention of the parties to enter into an arbitration agreement shall have to be gathered from the terms of the agreement. It has been held that where there is merely a possibility of the parties agreeing to arbitration in future, as contrasted from an obligation to refer disputes to arbitration, there is no valid and binding arbitration agreement.

The following fundamental guidelines and principles relating to a valid arbitration agreement have been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Chander v. Ramesh Chander and Ors5 along with the reference of the cases mentioned above:

  1. Where the clause provides that in the event of disputes arising between the parties, the disputes shall be referred to arbitration, it is an arbitration agreement. But where the clause relating to settlement of disputes, contains words which specifically exclude any of the attributes of an arbitration agreement or contains anything that detracts from an arbitration agreement, it will not be an arbitration agreement.
  1. Mere use of the word 'arbitration' or 'arbitrator' in a clause will not make it an arbitration agreement, if it requires or contemplates a further or fresh consent of the parties for reference to arbitration. For example, use of words such as "parties can, if they so desire, refer their disputes to arbitration" or "in the event of any dispute, the parties may also agree to refer the same to arbitration" or "if any disputes arise between the parties, they shall consider settlement by arbitration" in a clause relating to settlement of disputes, indicate that the clause is not intended to be an arbitration agreement.
  1. Such clauses merely indicate a desire or hope to have the disputes settled by arbitration, or a tentative arrangement to explore arbitration as a mode of settlement if and when a dispute arises. Such clauses require the parties to arrive at a further agreement to go to arbitration, as and when the disputes arise. Any agreement or clause in an agreement requiring or contemplating a further consent or consensus before a reference to arbitration is not an arbitration agreement, but an agreement to enter into an arbitration agreement in future.

Further, in some of the following recent judgments, the Courts have examined as to whether the use of word 'may'/'can' in the arbitration clause/agreement can render the parties to arbitration, the courts have relied upon the above cases and further enumerated the position of Indian law in this regard to what constitutes an arbitration agreement.

In M/S Linde Heavy Truck Division Ltd V. Container Corporation Of India Ltd & Anr.(2012)6the Arbitration Clause of the agreement contained "...that in case either party may require that the dispute be referred for resolution by arbitration...". The Apex Court relying on the well settled principles laid down in the above referred cases, held that if the agreement between the parties provides that in the event of any dispute, they may refer the same to arbitration, such clause would not constitute a binding arbitration agreement. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the above clause envisages a fresh consent for arbitration, in case the option for arbitration is sought to be exercised by one of the parties to the disputes. Accordingly it was held that the above clause containing the word 'may' does not constitute a binding arbitration agreement.

Again in another case, Wellington Associates Ltd. v. Kirit Mehta7clause 4 and 5 of the Arbitration agreement respectively, prescribed that:

Clause 4: It is hereby agreed that, if any dispute arises in connection with these presents, only courts in Bombay would have jurisdiction to try and determine the suit and the parties hereto submit themselves to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts in Bombay

Clause 5: It was also agreed by and between the parties that any dispute or differences arising in connection with these presents may be referred to arbitration in pursuance of the Arbitration Act, 1947.

Holding that clause 5, extracted above, does not constitute a firm or mandatory arbitration clause, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, inter alia, held as under:-

"Clause 5 follows with the words 'it is also agreed' that the dispute 'may' be referred to arbitration implying that parties need not necessarily go to the Civil Court by way of suit but can also go before an arbitrator. Thus, clause 5 is merely an enabling provision as contended by the respondents. I may also state that in cases where there is a sole arbitration clause couched in mandatory language, it is not preceded by a clause like clause 4 which discloses a general intention of the parties to go before a Civil Court by way of suit. Thus, reading clause 4 and clause 5 together, the court is of the view that it is not the intention of the parties that arbitration is to be the sole remedy."

Again in the case of B.Gopal Das v. Kota Straw Board8 the dispute resolution clause in the agreement prescribed:

"That in case of any dispute arising between us, the matter may be referred to arbitrator mutually agreed upon and acceptable to you and us."

It was held that fresh consent for arbitration was necessary.

In the case of Jyoti Brothers v. Shree Durga Mining Co9, the arbitration clause read as under:

"In the event of any dispute arising out of this contract the same can be settled by Arbitration held by a Chamber of Commerce at Madras. Their decision shall be binding to the Buyers and the Sellers."

Holding that the arbitration clause, extracted above, was not a valid Arbitration agreement, the Calcutta High Court, inter alia, held that:-

"The word 'can' by the most liberal interpretation only indicate a possibility. It only means this that after the dispute has occurred, the parties may go to Arbitration as an alternative method of settling the dispute instead of going to the Courts. But that means that after the dispute has arisen, the parties will have to come to a further agreement that they shall go to Arbitration.

In another case titled Powertech World Wide Limited v. Delvin International General Trading LLC10, The Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the law on subsistence of an arbitration agreement, but also in addition, looked into particular facts and circumstances of the case, and thereby specified an additional factor to establish the existence of an Arbitration agreement. The Dispute resolution clause provided that:

"Any disputes arising out of this Purchase Contract shall be settled amicably between both the parties or through an Arbitrator in India/UAE"

The Court held that there exists consensus ad idem between the disputed parties to amicably settle their disputes or settle through arbitration in India or UAE. Also, notwithstanding the judgment in Jagdish Chander, the correspondence letters between parties signifies that the petitioner invocated the arbitration and the respondent did not refute the existence of said clause invoked had also referred to the appointment of arbitrator.

Thus, along with the requirements of the factors required to determine the existence of an arbitration agreement, the Court in this case also enumerated an additional factor to determine existence of an arbitration agreement – i.e. the related correspondences/documents which would point to the intention of parties.

In the case of M/S .Castrol India Ltd. v. M/S. Apex Tooling Solutions11 , the Hon'ble High Court of Madras held that though the arbitration clause used the words 'shall have the right', the court held that the said wordings are only optional in nature, either to go for competent civil Court or to refer the matter to the arbitration, and further observed that there is no definite intention of the parties to go for arbitration in the case of any dispute or differences arises between the parties. It was held that unless there is a definite intention in the clause found in the agreement to refer the matter only to arbitration, it cannot be said that there is a valid clause of arbitration in the agreement.

In the recent case titled Avant Garde Clean Room & Engg Solutions Pvt Ltd v. Ind Swift Limited12 , the dispute resolution clause read as under:

"Arbitration-Dispute if any arising out of this Agreement shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts in city of Delhi."

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that the above clause merely uses 'arbitration' in the heading of the clause. However, the main body of the said clause completely contra-indicates the existence of any arbitration agreement since it provides that disputes, if any, arising out of the agreement 'shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts in city of Delhi'. It was held by the Court that in the present case, the main body of the clause does not even contemplate that the parties may agree to arbitration in future. The Court also compared the present case with the Linde Heavy Truck and Wellington case (referred above) on the use of the expression, 'may be referred to arbitration' as opposed to the expression, 'shall be referred to arbitration', and held that the intention of the parties was not to refer their disputes for arbitration. The submission of the petitioner that the word, 'may' used in clause aforesaid has to be construed as 'shall', was rejected by the Court by observing that the parties had used "shall" and "may" at different places in the dispute resolution clause. It was held that the parties used the word, 'may' not without any reason. It was held that was merely an enabling provision.

Therefore, unlike most US and UK courts addressing the question hold that language providing that a party "may" submit a dispute to arbitration requires mandatory arbitration, and not just permissive, the courts held that the arbitration clause mandated arbitration because if it did not, it "would render the clause meaningless for all practical purposes" since parties "could always voluntarily submit to arbitration. The decisions are in concert with several state court decisions holding that arbitration was mandatory once demanded by either party even though the arbitration clause used the word "may" instead of "shall"13, and therefore arbitration clauses have to be given the broadest possible interpretation in order to promote the resolution of controversies outside of the courts.

In view of the above discussion, it is clear that presently the Indian courts are of the conclusive view that an arbitration agreement is to follow the well settled principles whereby the specific and direct expression of intent of the parties to refer to arbitration proceedings are clear and precise from the language and terms of the clause in the agreement. The words used disclosing a determination and obligation to go for such arbitration proceedings, such an agreement would then make it a valid and binding agreement. Whereas any agreement or clause in an agreement requiring or contemplating a further consent or consensus before a reference to arbitration is not an arbitration agreement, but an agreement to enter into an arbitration agreement in future, such agreements would not be a valid agreement.


1 (1998) 3 SCC 573

2 (1999) 2 SCC 166;

3 (2003) 7 SCC 418;

4 (1996) 2 SCC 216

5 (2007) 5 SCC 719

6 195(2012)DLT366

7 (2004) 4 SCC 272

8 1970 WLN 572

9 AIR 1956 Calcutta 280

10 2011(4) ARBLR 278 (SC)

11 2014(2) ARBLR 481(Madras)

12 210 (2014) DLT 714

13 Hirshenson v. Spaccio, 800 So. 2d 670, 674 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Moses H. Cone v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24-25 (1983); Maguire v. King, 917 So.2d 263, 266 (Fla.App. 2005); Austin v. Owens-Brockway Glass Container, Inc. 78 F.3d 875, 879 (4th Cir. 1996) ; in Ziegler v. Knuck, 419 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1982; Conax Florida Corp. v. Astrium Ltd., 499 F. Supp. 2d 1287 (M.D. Fla. 2007)

© 2014, Vaish Associates, Advocates,
All rights reserved with Vaish Associates, Advocates, 10, Hailey Road, Flat No. 5-7, New Delhi-110001, India.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist professional advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. The views expressed in this article are solely of the authors of this article.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Vijay Pal Dalmia, Partner
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Nishith Desai Associates
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Nishith Desai Associates
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions