Arbitration clause uncertainty can defeat enforceability when the appointment mechanism is indefinite and the agreement lacks essential terms.

An arbitration clause referring disputes to "the arbitrators elected by the parties" was held void for vagueness and uncertainty because it did not specify the number of arbitrators or a definite mode of appointment. On strict construction, the language did not show a clear and ascertainable intention capable of forming a valid arbitration agreement, and the court could not supply missing terms by implication or create a contract for the parties. The agreement was therefore unenforceable, and filing under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act was not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the arbitration clause was so vague and uncertain as to be unenforceable and incapable of being filed in court under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act.

Analysis: The arbitration clause referred to disputes being decided by "the arbitrators elected by the parties", but did not specify the number of arbitrators or a definite mode of appointment. The expression "arbitrators" was held to indicate a different intention from a reference to a sole arbitrator, so Rule 1 of the First Schedule to the Arbitration Act could not be invoked to supply the missing terms. On a strict construction of the language used, the clause did not evince a definite and ascertainable intention capable of giving rise to a valid arbitration agreement. A contract whose meaning is not certain or capable of being made certain is void, and the Court cannot create a contract for the parties.

Conclusion: The arbitration agreement was held to be void for vagueness and uncertainty and therefore unenforceable; the filing of the agreement under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act was not sustainable.

---