- with Inhouse Counsel
- with readers working within the Law Firm industries
I. Introduction
The legal status of a Letter of Intent (“LOI”) has remained as a disputed proposition in law for a long time. Even though LOI’s are routinely employed by commercial parties as the initial step toward the execution of a formal agreement, their effect, whether they culminate in a concluded contract or operate as an expression of an intent to contract in the future, has engaged the courts and stakeholders in long time debates.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was faced with this question in Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) & Ors Vs. R.Z Malpani (SLP (C) No. 36889 of 2025). The issue was whether an LOI issued by MSEDCL in favour R.Z malpani resulted in a contract, and whether, an arbitration agreement could be said to exist so as to warrant a filing of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The judgment marks an important decision with respect to the law governing pre-contractual instruments, particularly in its treatment of the divide between an enforceable promise and a mere undertaking to enter into a promise at a future stage.
II. Factual Matrix
MSEDCL issued a tender dated 11.08.2021 inviting bids for civil and interior work to be carried out at 134 CFC centers spread across various O&M Divisions, with the projected values of the works estimated at Rs 17,41,37,020.
The respondent, R Z Malpani, submitted a bid in response to the said tender. By way of a letter dated 16.11.2022, MSEDCL accepted the respondent's bid for a value of Rs. 17,76,19,699. This letter constituted the LOI in question.
Notwithstanding the issuance of the LOI, MSEDCL never issued a formal work order. R.Z. Malpani sent multiple letters requesting issuance of the work order in terms of the LOI, however, no work order was ever issued. Subsequently, by its communication dated 05.08.2024, the R Z Malpani claimed to terminate the alleged contract and, relying on the Special Conditions of Contract contained in the tender documents, issued a notice seeking reference of disputes to arbitration and claiming compensation of Rs. 4,89,85,500.
The respondent subsequently approached the Bombay High Court by filing an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of an arbitrator. Accepting the respondent’s submission that the LOI amounted to acceptance of its offer and had resulted in a concluded contract, the High Court allowed the application and directed the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. It was this order that prompted MSEDCL to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
III. The Analysis of the Supreme Court
The major point of contention before the Supreme Court was whether, an arbitration agreement existed between the parties, and consequently, whether the High Court's direction for appointment of an arbitrator warranted interference.
The Court undertook an examination of the tender conditions. Clause 42 provided that in the event the work was cancelled, but after the issuance of a work order, the contractor would only be entitled to a refund of the EMD/SD, with no further claims being maintainable. Significantly, it was an admitted position between the parties that no work had ever been issued and that no formal agreement was carried out.
The Court stated that the issuing of an LOI, does not create an enforceable contract unless there is a clear and final acceptance of the offer by both sides. The Supreme Court observed that an LOI, ordinarily reflects only an intention to enter into a contract at a later stage. Thus, an LOI cannot be treated as binding the parties to the material terms of the tender.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court placed its reliance on the coordinate bench decision in the State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. OASYS Cybernatics Pvt Ltd (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2536), which discussed the legal character of a LOI and stated that an LOI creates no vested right until it passes the threshold of final and unconditional acceptance. The Coordinated bench stated that an LOI is a “promise in embryo”, capable of maturing into a contract only upon the satisfaction of stipulated preconditions or upon issue of an LOA.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the LOI in the instant case was a “promise to make a promise”, that is, an undertaking to formalise a contractual relationship in the future and not a concluded, binding promise in itself. No agreement had, therefore, been concluded between the parties.
However, where the terms of acceptance themselves show the completion of certain further steps, such as the execution of a formal agreement, the communication cannot be characterized as a final and unconditional acceptance so as to give rise to a binding contract. At its highest such an arrangement amounts to an agreement to agree, which the law does not recognize as enforceable.
IV. Incorporation of the Arbitration Clause
The Court thereafter had to examine whether, an arbitration clause in the tender documents could be said to have been incorporated into the LOI. In that context, the Supreme Court drew a distinction between a simple reference to another document and an express adoption of its terms. On the Court’s construction, the LOI referred to the tender documents only in a broad manner and did not specifically incorporate the arbitration resolution arrangement contained therein.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court concluded that the LOI did not evince the commercial intention of MSEDCL to create a binding legal relationship. Rather, the LOI informed the respondent that the work was entrusted to it upon opening of bids and laid down preliminary conditions to be fulfilled in contemplation of a future work order and agreement, so as to ensure that everything was in place for work to commence upon issuance of such work order.
V. Conclusion
An LOI, thus is no more than a stage in the parties’ negotiations and cannot, by itself, be equated with a concluded contract. The Supreme Court further made it clear that a party seeking to invoke arbitral jurisdiction must demonstrate an arbitration clause that is expressly incorporated into the document relied upon as the contract, such consent to arbitration cannot be presumed from broad references to tender terms and conditions.
The judgment offers valuable guidance on the legal limits of pre-contractual arrangements and reiterates that the formal contract formation in establishing enforceable rights and arbitral consent. It cautions practitioners and contracting parties alike that an LOI irrespective of its detail or form, cannot substitute a concluded agreement unless it clearly records a present and unequivocal intention to be legally bound. In the absence of the same, an LOI remains an indication of future intent and noting beyond.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
