9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of Clause 11 and Clause 23 of the agreement in a construction contract; arbitrability of Claims 2, 3, and 6 under the contract. Analysis: The appeal before the Supreme Court centered around Claims 2, 3, and 6 decided by an arbitrator under Clause 23 of the construction agreement. The Appellants argued that these claims fell under Clause 11 of the agreement and were not arbitrable. Clause 11 empowered the Engineer-in-Charge to make alterations or additions to the original specifications, with provisions for determining rates and resolving disputes. On the other hand, Clause 23 mandated arbitration for all disputes unless otherwise provided in the contract. The Appellants contended that the finality clause in Clause 11 excluded these claims from arbitration under Clause 23. The Court examined the interplay between similar clauses in a prior case, Prabartak Commercial Corporation Ltd. v. Chief Administrator Dandakaranya Project, where disputes excluded by a specific clause were held to be outside the scope of the arbitration clause. Drawing parallels, the Court held that when a contract clause specifically excludes certain disputes, such disputes are not arbitrable under a general arbitration provision. In the present case, the Court found that the finality of rates provision in Clause 11 constituted a provision contrary to Clause 23, thereby excluding Claims 2, 3, and 6 from arbitration. Consequently, the Court set aside the arbitration award concerning Claims 2, 3, and 6, as these claims were deemed non-arbitrable under the contract. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned award and decree were modified accordingly. The decision highlighted the significance of contract clauses in determining the arbitrability of specific disputes and reiterated the principle that disputes explicitly excluded by a contract provision are not subject to general arbitration clauses. In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment clarified the boundaries of arbitrability under a construction contract, emphasizing the importance of specific contractual provisions in delineating the scope of arbitration. The ruling underscored the need for consistency in interpreting contract clauses to uphold the parties' intentions and ensure effective dispute resolution mechanisms in construction agreements.
|
