Arbitration agreement interpretation: a final decision clause did not create a valid reference to arbitration.

Clause 25 did not amount to an arbitration agreement because Section 2(a) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 requires a written agreement to submit present or future disputes to arbitration, and this clause only gave the Public Health Engineer final decision-making power on specifications, workmanship, materials, and related matters. Read as a whole, the clause created an administrative role rather than a reference to an arbitrator, so finality of the Engineer's decision could not by itself imply arbitration. The limitation question on the facts could not cure the absence of an arbitration agreement. No dispute or difference under the contract was therefore referable to arbitration.

---

---

Issues: Whether Clause 25 of the contract constituted an arbitration agreement enabling reference of disputes to arbitration.

Analysis: Section 2(a) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 requires a written agreement to submit present or future differences to arbitration. Clause 25 empowered the Public Health Engineer to make final and binding decisions on questions relating to specifications, workmanship, materials, and other matters arising out of or relating to the contract, but it did not expressly provide for reference of disputes or differences to an arbitrator. The clause had to be read as a whole and could not be split to infer an agreement to arbitrate merely because the Engineer's decision was made final. On its language, the clause created an administrative or role for the Public Health Engineer and not an arbitration agreement. The question of limitation, on the facts, could not validate a reference in the absence of an arbitration agreement.

Conclusion: Clause 25 did not contain an arbitration agreement and no dispute or difference under the contract was referable to arbitration.

---