Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the contractual stipulation requiring a contractor invoking arbitration to deposit 7% of the claim amount was invalid on the grounds of unequal bargaining power, unconscionability, or conflict with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Analysis: The challenged clause was part of a commercial contract freely entered into by the parties. The principle of unequal bargaining power was held inapplicable to commercial contracts. The provisions relating to arbitral costs and deposits under Sections 31(8) and 38 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 operate only in the absence of an agreement and therefore do not override an express contractual stipulation governing deposit for arbitration. The doctrine of fairness and reasonableness cannot be used to alter or rewrite the express terms of a contract. The stipulation was also upheld as having a rational basis, since the deposit was linked to the quantum of the claim and served to discourage frivolous or inflated claims. The plea for a cap on the deposit amount was rejected as lacking substance.
Conclusion: The contractual requirement to deposit 7% of the claim amount was valid and enforceable, and the challenge to the clause failed.