top of page
Search

Unsigned Arbitration Agreements Are Valid: Intent of the Parties is Key

  • Writer: rit arora
    rit arora
  • Aug 1
  • 2 min read

By Lex Horizon

Judgment Reference: Vedanta Limited v. Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Limited, ARB. P. 853/2023

Citation: 2025:DHC:6185

Date of Judgment: 28th July 2025

Court: Hon’ble Delhi High Court


The Delhi High Court in Vedanta v. GSPC (28 July 2025) clarified that a wet-ink signature is not essential for a valid arbitration agreement under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act. Mutual consent can be inferred from written communications or pleadings.
Unsigned arbitration agreements are valid. Intentions of the parties is the key

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in a recent significant ruling dated 28th July 2025, has clarified the legal position on determining the existence of an arbitration agreement under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. While deciding a petition for the appointment of an arbitrator, the Court held that the key consideration is whether the parties had, in principle, agreed to refer disputes to arbitration.


Scope of “In Writing” under Section 7(2)


The Court explained further that Section 7(2) of the Act allows an arbitration agreement to be either an arbitration clause within a contract or a separate agreement altogether. Importantly, it emphasized that an arbitration agreement will be treated as being “in writing” if it is:

  • contained in a document signed by the parties, or

  • inferred from an exchange of letters, emails, or other forms of telecommunication that provide a record of the agreement, or

  • evident from the exchange of statements of claim and defence, where one party asserts the existence of an arbitration agreement and the other does not deny it.


No Wet-Ink Signature Required


This decision reiterates that a formal, wet-ink signature is not essential, so long as mutual consent to arbitrate is clear and recorded in some verifiable form. Unsigned Arbitration Agreements are valid for the purposes of Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

The decision aligns with the pro-arbitration approach of Indian courts in facilitating resolution through alternate dispute mechanisms.


Conclusion

The ruling in Vedanta v. GSPC underscores a critical principle in arbitration law: the formality of execution is secondary to the substance of intent. This is particularly relevant in commercial transactions, where communications may span across emails, drafts, or unsigned documents.


Decisions relied upon by the High Court:


a) Supreme Court: Cox & Kings Ltd. v. SAP India (P) Ltd., (2024) 4 SCC 1

b) Supreme Court: Trimex International FZE Ltd. v. Vedanta Aluminium Ltd., (2010) 3 SCC 1


Find order here:


bottom of page