https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445515 A contractual clause requiring a 7% pre-deposit to invoke arbitration was treated as invalid because it created a vague and disproportionate monetary barrier, lacked a clear mechanism for adjustment or refund, and was vulnerable to arbitrariness under Article 14. The Court reconciled S.K. Jain and ICOMM Tele Limited by holding that they dealt with materially different deposit clauses, so no direct conflict arose. It also held that, at the Section 11(6) referral stage, the Court may prima facie test an arbitration agreement against constitutional validity and refuse to enforce an unconstitutional condition. A unilateral power to appoint the sole arbitrator was held invalid under the neutrality requirements governing arbitral appointments. en-us Mon, 06 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 May 2024 11:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445515 A contractual clause requiring a 7% pre-deposit to invoke arbitration was treated as invalid because it created a vague and disproportionate monetary barrier, lacked a clear mechanism for adjustment or refund, and was vulnerable to arbitrariness under Article 14. The Court reconciled S.K. Jain and ICOMM Tele Limited by holding that they dealt with materially different deposit clauses, so no direct conflict arose. It also held that, at the Section 11(6) referral stage, the Court may prima facie test an arbitration agreement against constitutional validity and refuse to enforce an unconstitutional condition. A unilateral power to appoint the sole arbitrator was held invalid under the neutrality requirements governing arbitral appointments. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 06 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445515