https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370886 Clause 16.3 did not constitute an arbitration agreement because it created only a two-stage internal dispute mechanism, first before a Competent Officer and then by appeal to the Commissioner. The clause did not provide for reference of disputes to a neutral tribunal chosen by both parties, nor did it expressly or by necessary implication require adjudication by an impartial arbitrator. Its language indicated supervisory and administrative control rather than arbitration, so an arbitrator could not be appointed under Section 11(6) on that basis. The order appointing an arbitrator was therefore unsustainable. en-us Thu, 22 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Nov 2018 07:57:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370886 Clause 16.3 did not constitute an arbitration agreement because it created only a two-stage internal dispute mechanism, first before a Competent Officer and then by appeal to the Commissioner. The clause did not provide for reference of disputes to a neutral tribunal chosen by both parties, nor did it expressly or by necessary implication require adjudication by an impartial arbitrator. Its language indicated supervisory and administrative control rather than arbitration, so an arbitrator could not be appointed under Section 11(6) on that basis. The order appointing an arbitrator was therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 22 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370886