Summary
The Supreme Court held that the printed arbitration clause annexed to the bill of lading formed part of the parties’ contract. The document expressly incorporated its printed terms, and the claimant itself relied on it as the basis of its recovery suit. An arbitration agreement must be in writing but need not invariably bear the parties’ signatures. The Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court judgments rejecting the carrier’s request for arbitration.
Issues
- Whether an unsigned bill of lading incorporated an arbitration clause in its printed conditions.
- Whether progress of the recovery suit defeated the previously filed request for arbitration.
Provisions considered
- Section 7(3), (4) and (5), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996Writing was essential, but signatures were not invariably required. The express reference to the annexed conditions incorporated the arbitration clause into the written contract. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10)
Held
- The bill of lading expressly bound the merchant to terms on both sides, whether typed or printed. Its reference therefore incorporated the annexed arbitration clause. (¶¶ 2, 7, 8, 10)
- The claimant could not rely on the unsigned bill of lading as the foundation of its suit while rejecting the arbitration clause on the ground that the document lacked its signature. (¶ 8)
- Section 7(4) did not impose signatures in every case; the writing requirement in section 7(3) continued to govern, and incorporation under section 7(5) was established here. (¶¶ 9, 10)
- The examination of a witness in the suit did not defeat the arbitration application, which had been filed in the same year as the suit. The Court left applicability of the Multimodal Transportation of Goods Act, including section 26, undecided as immaterial to its conclusion. (¶ 11)
- The appeals were allowed and the High Court judgments set aside. (¶ 12)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court judgments set aside. The printed arbitration clause was held to form part of the contract.