https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157532 A clause requiring disputes under a work order to be referred to the Superintending Engineer for a final and binding decision was held to constitute an arbitration agreement, even though the words "arbitration" or "arbitrator" were absent, because the parties' intention to submit disputes for adjudication was clear. The Court also held that an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was within limitation, since the right to apply accrues when the dispute arises and the application was filed within the statutory period. The High Court's order was sustained and the reference to arbitration restored. en-us Mon, 14 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Jun 2014 11:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157532 A clause requiring disputes under a work order to be referred to the Superintending Engineer for a final and binding decision was held to constitute an arbitration agreement, even though the words "arbitration" or "arbitrator" were absent, because the parties' intention to submit disputes for adjudication was clear. The Court also held that an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was within limitation, since the right to apply accrues when the dispute arises and the application was filed within the statutory period. The High Court's order was sustained and the reference to arbitration restored. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 14 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157532