Contract clause saying disputes 'may be' referred to arbitration is not an arbitration agreement: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has reiterated that a contract clause stating that disputes "may be referred to arbitration" does not constitute a binding arbitration agreement. The court emphasized that the use of the word "may" implies an option, not a compulsion, and a clear, unequivocal intention to arbitrate is required for a valid arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This ruling reinforces the consensual nature of arbitration and provides clarity on the interpretation of arbitration clauses.