https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310745 The HC dismissed the petition challenging the legality of paras VIII and XV of Clause 28 of the arbitration agreement, which required a 10% deposit before arbitration. The court found the clauses neither unfair nor unconscionable, serving to deter frivolous claims. It concluded there was no unequal bargaining power and upheld the validity of the clauses. The court also addressed the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226, determining it was unwarranted as the clauses were reasonable, resulting in the dismissal of the petition. en-us Tue, 09 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Nov 2023 17:38:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310745 The HC dismissed the petition challenging the legality of paras VIII and XV of Clause 28 of the arbitration agreement, which required a 10% deposit before arbitration. The court found the clauses neither unfair nor unconscionable, serving to deter frivolous claims. It concluded there was no unequal bargaining power and upheld the validity of the clauses. The court also addressed the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226, determining it was unwarranted as the clauses were reasonable, resulting in the dismissal of the petition. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 09 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310745