A valid arbitration agreement requires clear intent and specific terms; mere mention of 'arbitration' does not suffice. The absence of mutual intent and clarity in an arbitration clause results in dismissal of arbitration petitions.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral)--The present petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as `the Act'] seeks appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes arising from a Service Agreement dated 26th February, 2019 [hereinafter referred to as `the Agreement'].

2. The arbitration clause thereunder reads as follows:

"19. Venue: Jurisdiction and Choice of Law

3. The existence of the Agreement is not in dispute. However, the primary, and in fact the only contention of the Respondents, is that clause 19 above is being misconstrued by the Petitioner to maintain this petition; there is, in fact, no arbitration agreement between the parties.

4. The Petitioner, controverting the objection of the Respondents, contends that the intent of the parties to resort to arbitration can be gathered from the language of clause 19. Stress is laid on the term "(Arbitration)" contained in the afore-noted clause, to argue that this is sufficient for the court to assume that there is an understanding between the parties to refer their disputes to arbitration, as the Act does not prescribe a particular format in which an arbitration agreement should be worded.

5. The court has heard the contentions of the parties. It is no longer res integra that the if this court, upon examining the arbitration agreement, finds it to be invalid, it can decline entertaining a petition under Section 11 (6) of the Act for appointing an Arbitrator, as the existence of an arbitration agreement is a pre-condition to make a reference. This question, has to be decided in the proceedings under Section 11 of the Act as held by the Supreme Court in Wellington Associates Ltd. v. Kirit Mehta, (2000) 4 SCC 272. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:

"18. Thus, unless the document filed by the party before the Chief Justice of India or his designate is an 'arbitration agreement' as defined in Section 7 as explained above, requiring a reference in a mandatory sense, no reference, in my view, can be made to the arbitral tribunal. It is, as already stated, indeed implicit -if an objection is raised by the respondent before the Chief Justice of India or his designate that the so called arbitration clause is not an arbitration clause at all falling within Section 7 -that such a question will have to be decided in the proceedings under Section 11 of the Act. Therefore the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the question-whether Clause 5 of the agreement amounts to an arbitration clause -is to be decided only by the arbitral tribunal is liable to be rejected."

6. Although the word `Arbitration' indeed finds a mention in clause 19, but upon a reading of the clause as a whole, it is clear that it lacks the necessary ingredients to constitute a valid arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Act. The intention to arbitrate has to be manifest from the arbitration agreement itself, which is not discernible in the instant case. When we carefully look at the clause under the heading "Venue: Jurisdiction and Choice of Law", we can easily notice that it is separated into two parts. The first part deals with choice of law - it provides that all rights, duties and obligations of the parties arising u