https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198613 Clause 30 was treated as a valid arbitration agreement because it referred present or future disputes to a named independent officer for a final, conclusive and binding decision, showing an intention to submit disputes to a private tribunal in writing. The clause was distinguished from provisions that merely regulate internal dispute handling without arbitration. The parties acted on the clause as arbitration, filed claims and counterclaims, led documents, and raised no timely jurisdictional objection. The award was upheld, and the absence of oral evidence did not by itself vitiate the proceedings or prevent execution. en-us Wed, 05 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Feb 2018 18:10:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198613 Clause 30 was treated as a valid arbitration agreement because it referred present or future disputes to a named independent officer for a final, conclusive and binding decision, showing an intention to submit disputes to a private tribunal in writing. The clause was distinguished from provisions that merely regulate internal dispute handling without arbitration. The parties acted on the clause as arbitration, filed claims and counterclaims, led documents, and raised no timely jurisdictional objection. The award was upheld, and the absence of oral evidence did not by itself vitiate the proceedings or prevent execution. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 05 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198613