https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283114 Clause 19 of the addendum was construed as a whole, and its opening language did not itself create a general arbitration agreement. The clause's operative sub-provisions were limited to disputes specifically identified within the reference mechanism, including disputes between two or more owners in the same building. On a fair reading, that language did not extend to disputes between the owners and the co-developer, and no other sub-clause brought such disputes within arbitration. The owner's dispute with the co-developer was therefore not referable to arbitration under the clause, and the refusal to appoint an arbitrator was upheld. en-us Thu, 22 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Sep 2019 14:18:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283114 Clause 19 of the addendum was construed as a whole, and its opening language did not itself create a general arbitration agreement. The clause's operative sub-provisions were limited to disputes specifically identified within the reference mechanism, including disputes between two or more owners in the same building. On a fair reading, that language did not extend to disputes between the owners and the co-developer, and no other sub-clause brought such disputes within arbitration. The owner's dispute with the co-developer was therefore not referable to arbitration under the clause, and the refusal to appoint an arbitrator was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 22 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283114