https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238345 A conjoint reading of Clauses 29 and 30 showed that the Superintending Engineer had supervisory and administrative control over execution of the works and could decide matters concerning specifications, designs, drawings and workmanship, but the clause did not evince an agreement to refer present or future disputes to arbitration. It therefore created a departmental mechanism for expert determination rather than a private judicial tribunal. Earlier decisions on similar clauses were followed, and State circulars could not alter the agreement's legal construction. Clause 30 was held not to be an arbitration clause, so appointment of the Chief Engineer as arbitrator was not justified. en-us Fri, 04 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Oct 2013 13:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238345 A conjoint reading of Clauses 29 and 30 showed that the Superintending Engineer had supervisory and administrative control over execution of the works and could decide matters concerning specifications, designs, drawings and workmanship, but the clause did not evince an agreement to refer present or future disputes to arbitration. It therefore created a departmental mechanism for expert determination rather than a private judicial tribunal. Earlier decisions on similar clauses were followed, and State circulars could not alter the agreement's legal construction. Clause 30 was held not to be an arbitration clause, so appointment of the Chief Engineer as arbitrator was not justified. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 04 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238345