In Brief
Three parking and commercial complex concession agreements between Delhi's Municipal Corporations and private contractors contained disputed Article 20 clauses titled 'Mediation by Commissioner'. The contractors argued these constituted valid arbitration agreements; the Corporations contended they prescribed only mediation. The Supreme Court held Article 20 is not a valid arbitration agreement because it: lacks express intent to arbitrate, involves an MCD-appointed officer with no party autonomy, lacks adversarial procedures like hearings and cross-examination, and provides an inherently biased process favouring the Corporation. The Court condemned ambiguously drafted arbitration clauses as criminal wastage of judicial time and urged courts to reject shoddily drafted clauses at the threshold, warning that personal liability may soon attach to unscrupulous drafting practices.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.