A dispute clause is drafted in calm and read in conflict. A clause that is vague about the seat, silent on the institution or careless about the law produces years of satellite litigation before the real dispute even begins. We draft clauses that work on the worst day of the contract.
An arbitration clause is a small machine with several moving parts. Each part - the agreement to arbitrate, the seat, the institution, the law, the number of arbitrators - must be present and consistent, or the machine jams when it is needed.
A Section 7 compliant agreement in writing that records a clear and unconditional intention to refer present or future disputes to arbitration, avoiding the optional or may-arbitrate language that courts have struck down.
An explicit juridical seat that fixes the supervisory court and curial law, separated cleanly from any venue named only for the convenience of hearings.
The law of the contract, the law of the arbitration agreement and the curial law stated separately, so no court has to infer which system governs which question.
A clear choice between an institution - SIAC, ICC, LCIA, MCIA, DIAC - and ad hoc procedure, with the chosen rules matched to the appointment mechanism and the seat.
The number of arbitrators, the appointment and replacement mechanism, the language, the timeline, confidentiality and the scope of disputes covered.
Ensuring the underlying instrument is adequately stamped, in light of the position settled in In Re Interplay (2023), so the agreement is admissible and the clause can be acted upon without a preliminary fight.
Each stage removes a future argument. The intent is recorded. The seat is fixed. The institution is named. The instrument is stamped. What remains is a clause that does its job under stress.
Record a clear, mandatory agreement to arbitrate that satisfies Section 7 and forecloses the may-arbitrate ambiguity.
Name the juridical seat and separate it from any hearing venue, deciding the supervisory court at the outset.
Select the institution or ad hoc rules, the number of arbitrators and the appointment mechanism.
State the contract law, the arbitration-agreement law and the curial law separately and consistently.
Confirm adequate stamping so the agreement is admissible and the clause is immediately operable.
Every clause we draft is read through three lenses at once. It has to be technically valid under Section 7 and Section 16, commercially proportionate to the contract it sits in, and legally enforceable in the courts that will one day supervise or enforce it.
We make the agreement to arbitrate unconditional, fix the seat and the institution, and ensure the clause survives a jurisdiction challenge through separability and kompetenz-kompetenz under Section 16.
We size the machinery to the deal - sole arbitrator or panel, institution or ad hoc, language and timeline - so the dispute process is proportionate to the value at stake.
We layer the three governing laws consistently and confirm the instrument is adequately stamped after In Re Interplay, so the clause is admissible and immediately operable.
A good arbitration clause is written for the moment of maximum hostility, not the moment of signing goodwill. The test of a clause is not how it reads at execution but whether, when one party is determined to obstruct, it still delivers a tribunal, a seat and an enforceable award without a detour through the courts.
Short, direct, on the record.
Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 requires that the agreement be in writing and record the parties’ intention to submit defined present or future disputes to arbitration. It can sit as a clause within a larger contract or stand as a separate agreement, and the writing requirement is satisfied by a signed document, by exchanged letters or electronic communications that record the agreement, or by an exchange of pleadings in which the existence of the agreement is alleged and not denied. What matters is a clear, mutual and binding intention to arbitrate - language that merely permits a party to opt for arbitration, or that makes arbitration one of several options, risks being held not to be a binding arbitration agreement at all.
Kompetenz-kompetenz, codified in Section 16, is the principle that an arbitral tribunal has the power to rule on its own jurisdiction, including on objections to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. It works together with the doctrine of separability, which treats the arbitration clause as an agreement independent of the contract it sits in. The practical effect is powerful: even if one party claims the main contract is void or was never validly concluded, the arbitration clause survives and the tribunal - not a court at the threshold - decides the jurisdictional challenge first. This is what stops a party from derailing an arbitration simply by attacking the underlying contract.
No, not after the position was settled in 2023. A seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in the decision commonly called In Re Interplay, held that an agreement that is unstamped or insufficiently stamped is inadmissible in evidence but is not void or unenforceable, and that the defect in stamping is curable. This overruled the earlier view that an unstamped arbitration agreement could not be acted upon. The clause therefore survives, the stamping can be cured, and the arbitration can proceed - though we still advise stamping the instrument correctly at the outset to avoid an avoidable preliminary dispute.
Yes. The clause should state whether the dispute will be decided by a sole arbitrator or a panel of three, and it should set out how they are appointed. Under Section 10, the parties are free to fix the number, provided it is not an even number, and if they do not specify, the default is a sole arbitrator. A sole arbitrator is usually faster and cheaper and suits lower-value or routine disputes; a three-member tribunal suits high-value or complex matters where each side wants to nominate an arbitrator. Leaving the number unstated invites a Section 11 appointment dispute, so we always make it explicit and matched to the likely value of disputes.
The recurring errors are: failing to name a seat, or naming a place without saying whether it is the seat or only the venue; using permissive language such as parties may refer disputes to arbitration, which courts can read as not binding; naming a non-existent or misdescribed institution or set of rules, which produces a pathological clause; mixing inconsistent dispute-resolution mechanisms, such as both arbitration and exclusive court jurisdiction, in the same contract; and saying nothing about the number of arbitrators, the appointment mechanism or the governing law. Each of these turns into a preliminary fight that delays the real dispute. A clause drafted with care on these points pays for itself many times over.
Cross-border arbitration under Section 2(1)(f), seat, governing law and institutional rules
Part II enforcement under the New York and Geneva Conventions, Section 48 grounds
Challenging a domestic award - grounds, patent illegality, public policy, limitation
The strongest awards are built on disciplined strategy from the first notice of arbitration, not improvised at the hearing.