https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458190 A project agreement was construed as a concession arrangement, not a works contract, because its substance showed concession rights, a defined concession period, toll recovery, financing by the concessionaire, escrow arrangements, force majeure, and termination provisions. On that basis, the special regime for works contracts under the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 did not apply, and the dispute fell to be governed by the arbitration clause under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The section 9 application for interim relief was therefore maintainable, and the contrary view treating the matter as exclusively within the 1983 Act was unsustainable. en-us Thu, 04 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Oct 2024 18:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458190 A project agreement was construed as a concession arrangement, not a works contract, because its substance showed concession rights, a defined concession period, toll recovery, financing by the concessionaire, escrow arrangements, force majeure, and termination provisions. On that basis, the special regime for works contracts under the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 did not apply, and the dispute fell to be governed by the arbitration clause under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The section 9 application for interim relief was therefore maintainable, and the contrary view treating the matter as exclusively within the 1983 Act was unsustainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 04 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458190