https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287472 A clause in a company letter was held not to constitute a valid arbitration agreement because it used permissive language and contemplated arbitration only if mutually agreed and acceptable to both parties. An effective arbitration agreement requires a written, binding intention to submit present or future disputes to arbitration, with both parties ad idem; an agreement to agree in future is insufficient. The deletion of Section 389 of the Companies Act, 1956 did not remove a company's capacity to enter into arbitration, but no enforceable arbitration agreement was shown on the wording relied upon. The stay application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was therefore not maintainable. en-us Wed, 21 Oct 1970 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Apr 2020 15:04:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287472 A clause in a company letter was held not to constitute a valid arbitration agreement because it used permissive language and contemplated arbitration only if mutually agreed and acceptable to both parties. An effective arbitration agreement requires a written, binding intention to submit present or future disputes to arbitration, with both parties ad idem; an agreement to agree in future is insufficient. The deletion of Section 389 of the Companies Act, 1956 did not remove a company's capacity to enter into arbitration, but no enforceable arbitration agreement was shown on the wording relied upon. The stay application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was therefore not maintainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 21 Oct 1970 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287472