https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198269 Contractual dispute resolution steps under Clauses 24 and 25 were treated as directory rather than mandatory, because the contract did not clearly make failure to approach the Dispute Review Expert within 14 days fatal to arbitration. The Court accepted that the Engineer's cryptic rejection justified clarification before DRE reference, and Clause 3 of the Special Conditions still permitted arbitration once a dispute arose. It further held that, after a dispute is validly referred to arbitration, a change in the quantified claim does not create a fresh dispute requiring repetition of the pre-arbitral process. The arbitral tribunal could allow amendment of the claim amount. en-us Fri, 06 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Jan 2018 11:58:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198269 Contractual dispute resolution steps under Clauses 24 and 25 were treated as directory rather than mandatory, because the contract did not clearly make failure to approach the Dispute Review Expert within 14 days fatal to arbitration. The Court accepted that the Engineer's cryptic rejection justified clarification before DRE reference, and Clause 3 of the Special Conditions still permitted arbitration once a dispute arose. It further held that, after a dispute is validly referred to arbitration, a change in the quantified claim does not create a fresh dispute requiring repetition of the pre-arbitral process. The arbitral tribunal could allow amendment of the claim amount. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 06 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198269