https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768517 Clause 16 was not a valid arbitration agreement because it did not show a clear intention to refer disputes to a private, impartial and independent tribunal whose decision would be binding. Although the clause required mutual settlement and then referral to the parties' own Managing Director and Designated Partner, those signatories were directly involved in the contract and dispute, so they could not function as an impartial arbitral forum. The court treated the clause as an in-house contractual dispute-resolution mechanism rather than arbitration, and the request for appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was rejected. en-us Wed, 02 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Apr 2025 07:42:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768517 Clause 16 was not a valid arbitration agreement because it did not show a clear intention to refer disputes to a private, impartial and independent tribunal whose decision would be binding. Although the clause required mutual settlement and then referral to the parties' own Managing Director and Designated Partner, those signatories were directly involved in the contract and dispute, so they could not function as an impartial arbitral forum. The court treated the clause as an in-house contractual dispute-resolution mechanism rather than arbitration, and the request for appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was rejected. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 02 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768517