https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=226157 A contractual clause requiring notice within 14 days of a DRB recommendation was held unenforceable to the extent it extinguished the right to arbitrate, because the amended Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 voids restraints that curtail enforcement of contractual rights after a short stipulated period. The court also held that an arbitral order refusing to entertain claims on the basis of such a contractual bar is a jurisdictional decision, since the objection goes to arbitrability and may be raised under Section 16(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; an appeal under Section 37(2)(a) was therefore maintainable. The arbitral refusal was set aside and the claims were directed to be decided on merits. en-us Tue, 02 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=226157 A contractual clause requiring notice within 14 days of a DRB recommendation was held unenforceable to the extent it extinguished the right to arbitrate, because the amended Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 voids restraints that curtail enforcement of contractual rights after a short stipulated period. The court also held that an arbitral order refusing to entertain claims on the basis of such a contractual bar is a jurisdictional decision, since the objection goes to arbitrability and may be raised under Section 16(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; an appeal under Section 37(2)(a) was therefore maintainable. The arbitral refusal was set aside and the claims were directed to be decided on merits. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 02 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=226157