Supreme Court: Use of 'Can' in Arbitration Clause Does Not Create a Binding Mandate

The Supreme Court held that an arbitration clause using the word "can" denotes a mere possibility rather than a binding obligation to arbitrate.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh dismissed an appeal against a Bombay High Court ruling, affirming that a valid agreement must clearly indicate a determination to refer disputes to arbitration.

The Court clarified that mandatory intent is an essential attribute; without it, the clause is not enforceable.

The Court emphasized that the specific language used in contracts is paramount in ascertaining whether parties intended to be bound by an arbitral tribunal.

[Nagreeka Indcon Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Cargocare Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd.]