Arbitration Clause Valid Even Without Specifying Law, Seat, or Venue: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court ruled that an arbitration agreement remains valid even if it does not specify the applicable law, seat, or venue, as long as there is a clear intent to refer disputes to a private tribunal.

The case involved a dispute over payments under a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for a government project.

The respondent argued the clause was invalid due to missing details, but the court held that the absence of specifics does not negate arbitration if parties intended to resolve disputes privately.

The court also disqualified the named arbitrator for being an interested party and appointed an independent arbitrator to resolve the dispute.