An arbitration agreement may be valid without signatures if its essential attributes are satisfied, including mutual acknowledgment of disputes by parties.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral)--The present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter "the Act"] seeks appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal for adjudication of disputes relating to invoices issued by the Petitioner - Surya Processors Pvt. Ltd. [hereinafter "SPPL"] in the course of their dealings with Respondent - M/s. Shree Jai Gurudev Textile Agencies [hereinafter "SJGTA"].

2. SJGTA does not dispute the invoices, however, they contend that the instant petition is not maintainable as there is no arbitration agreement between the parties.

3. Ms. Tanishq Mehta, counsel for SJGTA argues that the arbitration agreement relied upon by SPPL does not fulfil the requirements of Section 7(4)(a) of the Act. A mere mention of `arbitration' in an invoice does not translate into existence of an arbitration agreement. The invoices are only a proof of service(s) rendered/good(s) supplied; it is not an agreement in itself. SJGTA is not a member of Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association (Regd.) [hereinafter "DHMA"] and therefore, they neither have confidence in its fairness, nor are its rules applicable to SJGTA. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Taipack Ltd. v. Ram Kishore Nagar Mal, 2007(3) Arb. L.R. 402 (Delhi): MANU/DE/8199/2007, Parmeet Singh Chatwal v. Ashwani Sahani, MANU/DE/0442/2020 and Kailash Nath Aggarwal v. Aaren Exports, 2009 SCC OnLine DEL 3691.

4. Per contra, Mr. Gurmukh Choudhri, counsel for SPPL argues that the arbitration agreement contained in the invoices, is binding on SJGTA as they have accepted and acted on the same. He states that SPPL is not insisting for reference of disputes to DHMA and instead, arbitration can be conducted through any independent Arbitral Tribunal appointed by this Court. Further, he contends that SJGTA has admitted the existence of the arbitration agreement in their reply to SPPL's notice of invocation.

ANALYSIS

5. The Court has considered the contentions advanced by the counsel for the parties.

6. The arbitration agreement relied upon by SPPL is contained in the footnote of the invoices which features on the same page, as are other details of the invoice. The same is in a readable font size, and reads as under:

"All disputes are to be decided by Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association (Regd.), as per the Rules & Regulations as under Arbitration & Conciliation Act"

7. The invoices are not signed by SJGTA, and therefore the question that arises is if they can be considered to be a ground to deny the agreement. Section 7(3) of the Act stipulates that the arbitration agreement shall be in writing, which is undoubtedly an essential requisite. Sub-clause (b) and (c) of Section 7(4) of the Act indicates the legislative intent to also include a written document, not signed by the parties, within the scope of a valid arbitration agreement. Section 7(4)(b) of the Act entails that an arbitration agreement can be in the nature of exchange of communication, providing a record of the agreement in writing. Thus, taking into consideration the language deployed in the aforesaid provision, it emerges that the signature of either party on the arbitration agreement is not mandatory.

8. Furthermore, the aforesaid provision also manifests that an arbitration agreement need not be in a particular form. It is no longer res integra that a valid arbitration agreement can be constituted as long as all the essential attributes are fulfilled.¹ There are numerous case laws holding that to interpret the agreement as an `arbitration agreement', one has to ascertain whether there is consensus ad