https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300189 Clause 29 of the supplementary agreement, read with substituted Clause 67, was held not to constitute an arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court applied the test of whether the clause required reference of disputes to a private forum for a fair adjudicatory enquiry and a final, binding decision on both parties. Because the clause only required prior examination by the Chief Engineer, made his decision binding only on the contractor, and preserved recourse to civil court if the contractor remained dissatisfied or no decision was given in time, it was treated as a preliminary dispute-resolution mechanism, not arbitration. en-us Fri, 24 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Jan 2022 18:00:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300189 Clause 29 of the supplementary agreement, read with substituted Clause 67, was held not to constitute an arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court applied the test of whether the clause required reference of disputes to a private forum for a fair adjudicatory enquiry and a final, binding decision on both parties. Because the clause only required prior examination by the Chief Engineer, made his decision binding only on the contractor, and preserved recourse to civil court if the contractor remained dissatisfied or no decision was given in time, it was treated as a preliminary dispute-resolution mechanism, not arbitration. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 24 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300189