In BGM and M-RPL-JMCT (JV) v. Eastern Coalfields Limited, the Supreme Court on July 18, 2025, dismissed an appeal seeking appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The dispute centered around Clause 13 of the contract, which stated that redressal of disputes “may be sought” through arbitration. The Court held that such language does not amount to a binding arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Act. It emphasized that a valid arbitration clause must reflect a clear intention to arbitrate, be in writing, and establish consensus ad idem between parties. The clause in question was deemed an enabling provision, lacking mandatory force, and requiring fresh consent at the dispute stage. Relying on precedents like Jagdish Chander and Mahanadi Coalfields, the Court clarified that permissive wording like “may be sought” fails to create enforceable arbitration obligations. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court’s rejection of the arbitration application and refused to appoint an arbitrator.