Finality clause in contract is not arbitration agreement unless disputes are clearly referred for adjudication.

A contractual clause that merely gives a Superintending Engineer supervisory control and makes his decisions final on work-related questions does not amount to an arbitration agreement unless the contract clearly shows a reference of disputes to him for adjudication. Because Clause 22 contained no express or implied agreement to arbitrate and no provision referring disputes for decision, it could not sustain an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The clause was therefore treated as an administrative finality clause, not an arbitration clause, and the application was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether Clause 22 of the contract amounted to an arbitration agreement so as to sustain an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

Analysis: The clause did not expressly provide for arbitration, nor could an agreement to arbitrate be implied from its wording. It contained no reference to any dispute being referred for decision; instead, it entrusted the Superintending Engineer with supervisory authority and administrative control over the execution of the work. A clause merely making the Engineer's decision final and binding on questions arising out of the contract does not, by itself, constitute an arbitration agreement unless it clearly indicates a reference of disputes to him for adjudication.

Conclusion: Clause 22 was not an arbitration agreement, and the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act was not maintainable. The appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A contractual clause conferring finality on an engineer's decisions in the course of execution, without an express or implied reference of disputes for adjudication, is not an arbitration agreement.

---