https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256688 A claim for extended stay compensation was treated as consciously waived where the bidder quoted "NIL" for that head and accepted the letter of acceptance stating that no such compensation was payable, so it did not give rise to an arbitrable dispute. By contrast, a clause making the Engineer-in-Charge's decision final on additional works did not by itself exclude arbitration, because the underlying claim remained within the contractual arbitration framework and capable of adjudication. Arbitration was therefore confined to the claim for additional works, while the extended stay compensation claim was excluded from reference. en-us Thu, 12 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Feb 2015 13:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256688 A claim for extended stay compensation was treated as consciously waived where the bidder quoted "NIL" for that head and accepted the letter of acceptance stating that no such compensation was payable, so it did not give rise to an arbitrable dispute. By contrast, a clause making the Engineer-in-Charge's decision final on additional works did not by itself exclude arbitration, because the underlying claim remained within the contractual arbitration framework and capable of adjudication. Arbitration was therefore confined to the claim for additional works, while the extended stay compensation claim was excluded from reference. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 12 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256688