Unilateral invoice terms cannot create arbitration jurisdiction, and a C form will not extend limitation without clear acknowledgment.

A unilateral invoice term will not create a valid arbitration agreement unless the parties clearly and mutually assent in writing under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Where the purchase order excludes additional terms and confines disputes to Delhi courts, a printed invoice condition and a signature acknowledging receipt of goods do not establish consensus ad idem or arbitral jurisdiction. A later C form also will not extend limitation unless it acknowledges a present subsisting liability and the debtor-creditor relationship under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. On these principles, the award was set aside as the reference lacked jurisdiction and the claim was time-barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the invoice conditions relied upon by the respondent constituted a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement conferring jurisdiction on the arbitrator; (ii) whether the respondent's claim was within limitation or the later issuance of the C form amounted to acknowledgment of liability extending limitation.

Issue (i): whether the invoice conditions relied upon by the respondent constituted a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement conferring jurisdiction on the arbitrator.

Analysis: An arbitration agreement must satisfy the requirement of a real agreement between the parties and must be in writing within the meaning of Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The purchase order expressly excluded unilateral additional terms unless specifically accepted in writing and also confined disputes to the courts at Delhi. The respondent's printed invoice condition was unilateral, vague, and did not clearly refer to arbitration or the association's regulations. The petitioner's signature on the invoice was only an acknowledgment of receipt of goods and did not show acceptance of arbitration. No consensus ad idem could be inferred from the documents or conduct.

Conclusion: No valid arbitration agreement existed, and the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to decide the dispute.

Issue (ii): whether the respondent's claim was within limitation or the later issuance of the C form amounted to acknowledgment of liability extending limitation.

Analysis: For a writing to amount to acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, it must evince a present subsisting liability and an intention to admit the jural relationship of debtor and creditor. The contractual period for payment had expired well before the arbitration commenced. The C form merely evidenced the transaction and receipt of goods, but did not admit any existing liability or outstanding debt. It therefore could not extend limitation.

Conclusion: The claim was time-barred and the C form did not constitute acknowledgment of liability.

Final Conclusion: The award was set aside as contrary to public policy because the reference itself was without jurisdiction and the claim was barred by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: An arbitration clause cannot be inferred from a unilateral invoice term unless there is clear mutual assent, and a document amounts to acknowledgment under limitation law only if it admits a present subsisting liability and the debtor-creditor relationship.

---