We are pleased to share that The Times of India has featured the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in O.M.P.(I)(COMM.) 30/2026, wherein the Respondents were represented by Headway Partners
The judgment reaffirms a fundamental principle of arbitration law, that the existence of a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement is a jurisdictional prerequisite for seeking interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
In a detailed analysis of Sections 7 and 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Hon’ble High Court observed that consensus ad idem remains the cornerstone of a binding arbitration agreement. The Court held that while an arbitration agreement need not always be contained in a formally signed document, it must nevertheless reflect a clear and unequivocal meeting of minds between the parties.
The Hon’ble Court concluded that mere exchange of draft agreements, WhatsApp communications, and continued negotiations do not, by themselves, establish a binding arbitration agreement. Since no concluded contract or mutual consensus existed between the parties, the Petition seeking interim relief under Section 9 was held to be not maintainable.
The judgment reinforces the settled principle that the Court’s jurisdiction under Section 9 is contingent upon the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, and that commercial negotiations, draft documents, or informal exchanges, in the absence of contractual finality, do not satisfy this requirement.
The Respondents were represented by Mr. Akhil Sibal, Senior Advocate, along with Mr. Nitesh Jain, Founder & Managing Partner, Headway Partners, assisted by Mr. Nishant Bhargava and Ms. Parul Khurana, Advocates.
Delhi High Court: Draft agreements, WhatsApp chats alone don’t create binding arbitration agreement
