IF policy circular amounts to Arbitration.

IN the case of Dhansar eng comp vs eastern coal feilds , The Calcutta High Court ruled that a policy circular from a parent company suggesting arbitration does not constitute an arbitration agreement if it necessitates new consent from the contractor to refer the dispute to arbitration. The court clarified that for existing contracts, the circular’s requirement for contractor consent means it cannot be viewed as an arbitration agreement; a fresh arbitration agreement would need to be executed.

Regarding the question of whether an arbitration clause would be void for uncertainty if it specifies multiple seats of arbitration, the answer is generally that it could be deemed problematic. An arbitration clause needs to provide a clear and definite framework for where arbitration will take place. If it indicates multiple seats without clarity on which one applies, it may create ambiguity, potentially rendering the clause unenforceable. Courts typically prefer clarity to ensure that parties understand their obligations and the venue for arbitration.

Disclaimer: (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the KanoonKiBaat staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)