https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458157 A concession agreement was held not to fall within the restricted statutory meaning of a works contract under the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, because the arrangement, read as a whole and in commercial context, involved design, financing, operation, maintenance and toll collection, together with a State Support Agreement, rather than a contract merely for execution of specified works. The presence of arbitration clauses in the agreement and the State Support Agreement supported reference of disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondent's earlier pleading before the arbitral tribunal, describing the arrangement as a concession agreement and not a works contract, was treated as a binding admission. The dispute was therefore correctly referable to arbitration under the 1996 Act. en-us Wed, 04 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Oct 2024 12:24:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458157 A concession agreement was held not to fall within the restricted statutory meaning of a works contract under the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, because the arrangement, read as a whole and in commercial context, involved design, financing, operation, maintenance and toll collection, together with a State Support Agreement, rather than a contract merely for execution of specified works. The presence of arbitration clauses in the agreement and the State Support Agreement supported reference of disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondent's earlier pleading before the arbitral tribunal, describing the arrangement as a concession agreement and not a works contract, was treated as a binding admission. The dispute was therefore correctly referable to arbitration under the 1996 Act. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 04 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458157