D Rukmanibai Gupta vs. Collector (1980) 4 SCC 556 - on. relied v. Gopa/ Chunder Laha

Judgment

(2014] 12 S.C.R. 488 A B M/S. GOVIND RUBBER LTD. v .. M/S. LOU IDS DREYFUS COMMODITIES ASIA PVT. LTD. (Civil Appeal No. 11438 of 2014) DECEMBER 16, 2014 [M.Y. EQBAL AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: ss.6, 7(4), 7(5) - Arbitration agreement - Whether the parties we~ ad idem to C refer the dispute for arbitration to the Singapore commodity Exchange in the absence of arbitration agreement - Held: An arbitration agreement even though in writing need not be signed by the parties if the record of agreement is provided by exchange of letters, telex, telegrams or other means of D telecommunication - s. 7(4)(c) provides that there can be an arbitration agreement in the exchange of statements of claims and defence in which the existence of the agreement is If it can alleged by one party and not denied by the other - be prima facie shown that the parties are at ad idem, then E mere fact of one party not signing the agreement cannot F absolve himself from the liability under the agreement - Therefore, signature is not a formal requirement u/s.

7(4)(b) or s. 7(4)(c) or u/s. 7(5) of the Act - In the instant case, the intention of the parties is clear from the correspondence regarding their meeting of mind and ad idem to the terms of sale contract which contained the forum of dispute resolution at Singapore Commodity Exchange - Apart from that, after the dispute was referred to Singapore Commodity Exchange for arbitration, the appellant in response to the notice made G a counter claim before the Arbitral Tribunal contending that the appellant had incurred huge loss in view of the failure on the part of the respondent to supply the goods in time - By making a counter claim, the appellant indeed submitted to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator.

H 488 GOVIND RUBBER LTD. v. LOU IDS DREYFUS COMMODITIES ASIA PVT. LTD. 489 Dismissing the appeal, the .Court A HELD: 1. An agreement even if not signed by the parties can be spelt out from correspondence exchanged between the parties. However it is the duty of the Court to construe correspondence with a view to arrive at the B conclusion whether there was any meeting of mind between the parties which could create a binding contract between them. It is necessary for the Court to find out from the correspondence as to whether the parties were ad idem to the terms of contract. While construing an C arbitration agreement or arbitration clause, the Courts have to adopt a pragmatic and not technical approach. [Paras 12 and 13] [497-G-H]