https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262050 A binding arbitration agreement was not shown, so jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could not be invoked. The employment contract contained no arbitration clause and did not incorporate the employer's solutions programme into the terms of employment. The exclusive Bombay jurisdiction clause was inconsistent with the alleged arbitration arrangement. In any event, the programme referred to arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act and American Arbitration Association rules, indicating a foreign procedural framework rather than Part I of the 1996 Act. It also did not require compulsory submission to arbitration in the manner contemplated by Section 7, because it only offered an employee an option to seek arbitration and accept or reject the result. en-us Fri, 10 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Jul 2015 10:17:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262050 A binding arbitration agreement was not shown, so jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could not be invoked. The employment contract contained no arbitration clause and did not incorporate the employer's solutions programme into the terms of employment. The exclusive Bombay jurisdiction clause was inconsistent with the alleged arbitration arrangement. In any event, the programme referred to arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act and American Arbitration Association rules, indicating a foreign procedural framework rather than Part I of the 1996 Act. It also did not require compulsory submission to arbitration in the manner contemplated by Section 7, because it only offered an employee an option to seek arbitration and accept or reject the result. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 10 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262050