Supreme Court Arbitration Agreement Valid Without Signatures if Consent Shown Through Conduct

The Supreme Court ruled that under Section 44 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an arbitration agreement must be in writing but need not be signed if the parties’ conduct and documented communications show mutual consent.

It allowed Glencore International AG's appeal against the Delhi High Court, noting that email exchanges and partial contract performance established binding consent, including the arbitration clause.

The Court emphasised that the reference to arbitration should be ordered unless the agreement is prima facie invalid.

It set aside the High Court’s refusal and directed disputes to arbitration, reinforcing that valid arbitration agreements can exist without signatures if a clear consensus is demonstrated.