https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310747 The HC dismissed the petition challenging Clause 33(7) requiring pre-deposit for arbitration. The contractor argued the clause was unreasonable and that appointment of arbitrator without pre-deposit constituted waiver. The court distinguished this case from ICOMM Tele Limited, noting Clause 33(7) provided for refund/adjustment of deposit after award, unlike the arbitrary forfeiture clause struck down in ICOMM. The court held the Chief Administrator's appointment direction explicitly required compliance with security deposit provisions, rejecting the waiver argument and finding no illegality in the arbitrator's order. en-us Fri, 08 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Nov 2023 08:26:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310747 The HC dismissed the petition challenging Clause 33(7) requiring pre-deposit for arbitration. The contractor argued the clause was unreasonable and that appointment of arbitrator without pre-deposit constituted waiver. The court distinguished this case from ICOMM Tele Limited, noting Clause 33(7) provided for refund/adjustment of deposit after award, unlike the arbitrary forfeiture clause struck down in ICOMM. The court held the Chief Administrator's appointment direction explicitly required compliance with security deposit provisions, rejecting the waiver argument and finding no illegality in the arbitrator's order. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 08 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310747