Arbitration clause wording must show clear intent; a permissive clause was not enough to appoint an arbitrator.

A dispute resolution clause stating that disputes "can be settled by arbitration" does not, by itself, create a binding arbitration agreement. The Supreme Court of India treated the parties' chosen words as the best evidence of intent and held that "can" denotes permission or possibility, not a mandatory commitment to arbitrate. Because the clause did not make arbitration the exclusive mode of resolution and did not show that the parties were already ad idem on arbitration, it left arbitration as a future possibility requiring further agreement. The request for appointment of an arbitrator therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a dispute resolution clause stating that disputes "can be settled by arbitration" creates a binding arbitration agreement capable of supporting appointment of an arbitrator.

Analysis: The clause was construed in the light of settled principles that an arbitration agreement must reflect a clear and enforceable intention to submit disputes to arbitration. The word "can" ordinarily denotes possibility or permission, not compulsion, and in the contractual setting the parties' chosen words are the best evidence of their intent. The clause did not show that arbitration was the exclusive or mandatory mode of dispute resolution, nor did it indicate that the parties were already ad idem to arbitrate. Rather, it left arbitration as a future possibility requiring further agreement. On that construction, the clause did not satisfy the essential attributes of an arbitration agreement.

Conclusion: The clause was held not to be a binding arbitration agreement, and the request for appointment of an arbitrator failed.

---