https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280928 The appeal challenged the appointment of an arbitrator under Sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which was set aside by the Subordinate Judge. The dispute centered on the interpretation of Clause 23 of the Agreement regarding the appointment of a Superintending Engineer as an arbitrator. The court held that the appointment of the Superintending Engineer was valid, considering the broader interpretation of the term "State Public Works Department." Subsequent legislation introduced a new provision, Section 41A, establishing an Arbitration Tribunal, superseding the previous appointment process. The appeal was allowed, directing the dispute to the newly constituted Arbitration Tribunal as per Section 41A of the amended Act. en-us Mon, 24 Oct 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 May 2019 14:32:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280928 The appeal challenged the appointment of an arbitrator under Sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which was set aside by the Subordinate Judge. The dispute centered on the interpretation of Clause 23 of the Agreement regarding the appointment of a Superintending Engineer as an arbitrator. The court held that the appointment of the Superintending Engineer was valid, considering the broader interpretation of the term "State Public Works Department." Subsequent legislation introduced a new provision, Section 41A, establishing an Arbitration Tribunal, superseding the previous appointment process. The appeal was allowed, directing the dispute to the newly constituted Arbitration Tribunal as per Section 41A of the amended Act. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 24 Oct 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280928