https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181105 The text discusses two key issues in cane-supply arrangements under the U.P. Sugar Factories Control Rules, 1938. First, it explains that use of the prescribed form, written terms, and subsequent conduct by the parties could amount to substantial compliance, so omissions in the form and absence of a signature did not invalidate the agreement or prevent reference of the dispute. Second, it states that Rule 23, including the appeal provision in sub-rule (6), was upheld as valid because arbitration operated only with the parties' consent and the rule was treated as a permissible part of the dispute-resolution machinery, not unconstitutional discrimination under Article 14. en-us Thu, 06 Dec 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Apr 2016 14:25:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181105 The text discusses two key issues in cane-supply arrangements under the U.P. Sugar Factories Control Rules, 1938. First, it explains that use of the prescribed form, written terms, and subsequent conduct by the parties could amount to substantial compliance, so omissions in the form and absence of a signature did not invalidate the agreement or prevent reference of the dispute. Second, it states that Rule 23, including the appeal provision in sub-rule (6), was upheld as valid because arbitration operated only with the parties' consent and the rule was treated as a permissible part of the dispute-resolution machinery, not unconstitutional discrimination under Article 14. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 06 Dec 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181105