Rukmanibai Gupta v Collector, Jabalpur

• The appellant held a limestone quarry lease from the State of Madhya Pradesh, executed on 26 June 1961.
• Clause 15 of the lease provided that any doubt, difference or dispute about the lease, the land, its working, or any rent or royalty "shall be decided by the lessor whose decision shall be final".
• The State demanded arrears of royalty. The appellant made a representation under Clause 15, was heard by the Secretary, Department of Natural Resources, and an order assessing royalty followed, with a demand notice dated 4 November 1965.
• She challenged the demand by a writ petition under Article 226. The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed it, holding that Clause 15 was an arbitration agreement and the decision was an award.

1. Whether Clause 15 of the lease is an arbitration agreement.
2. Whether a decision given under it can be challenged by a writ petition under Article 226.

• An arbitration agreement is not required to be in any particular form. What matters is whether the parties agreed that disputes about the subject matter of the contract would be referred to a person for decision.
• Clause 15, read as a whole, referred future disputes to the arbitration of the lessor (the Governor), whose decision was final. It was an arbitration agreement, not a provision for a departmental appeal.
• The Arbitration Act, 1940 is a self-contained code. The award could be questioned only under that Act, so the High Court rightly declined to entertain the writ petition. The appeal was dismissed.

A clause need not use the word "arbitration" to be an arbitration agreement. If the parties agree that disputes arising under their contract shall be referred to a person whose decision is final, after hearing them, the clause is an arbitration agreement and the decision is an award, open to challenge only under the arbitration statute.