Arbitration agreement by contractual clause upheld where parties referred disputes to a named private tribunal and participated without timely objection.

Clause 30 was treated as a valid arbitration agreement because it referred present or future disputes to a named independent officer for a final, conclusive and binding decision, showing an intention to submit disputes to a private tribunal in writing. The clause was distinguished from provisions that merely regulate internal dispute handling without arbitration. The parties acted on the clause as arbitration, filed claims and counterclaims, led documents, and raised no timely jurisdictional objection. The award was upheld, and the absence of oral evidence did not by itself vitiate the proceedings or prevent execution.

---

---

Issues: Whether Clause 30 of the contract constituted a valid arbitration agreement, and whether the award made under that clause was liable to be executed.

Analysis: The clause conferred authority on a named and independent officer to decide disputes arising out of or relating to the contract, and declared his decision to be final, conclusive and binding. The language showed a present or future dispute, an intention to have it decided by a private tribunal, agreement in writing to be bound by that decision, and consensus between the parties. The clause was therefore distinguishable from provisions that merely empowered an to prevent or settle internal disputes without constituting arbitration. The parties had acted on the clause as an arbitration arrangement, participated in the proceedings, filed claims and counterclaims, and led documentary material without objecting to jurisdiction at the relevant stage. The award was made after both sides were afforded opportunity, and the absence of oral evidence did not invalidate it.

Conclusion: Clause 30 was a valid arbitration agreement, and the award made thereunder was not vitiated on the grounds urged by the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: A contractual clause is an arbitration agreement when it evinces an intention to refer existing or future disputes to a named private tribunal for a binding decision, and objections to the tribunal's character or jurisdiction cannot ordinarily defeat execution after the parties have participated without timely protest.

---