Summary
A contractor invoked arbitration after accepting substantially revised rates under an amendment expressly excluding arbitration for settlement of claims. The Supreme Court held that the amendment superseded the original arbitration agreement. Its execution and implementation were undisputed and coercion was not pleaded. The appointment petition therefore failed for absence of a subsisting arbitration agreement.
Issues
- Whether the amendment superseded the original arbitration agreement.
- Whether consideration of claims by the Technical Committee or retention of procedural arbitration clauses preserved the remedy.
Held
- The amendment, read in its contractual setting, unambiguously displaced the original arbitration agreement. The contractor accepted its benefits without disputing execution or alleging coercion. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28)
- The Technical Committee was constituted under the amendment. Its consideration of claims did not undo the amendment or establish waiver, which was not pleaded. (¶ 30)
- Retention of the machinery clause in the original conditions could not revive arbitration after the substantive remedy had expressly been superseded. (¶ 32)
- The appointment petition was not maintainable without a subsisting arbitration agreement. Other remedies and contentions remained open, and the separate question of the lead partner’s authority did not require decision. (¶¶ 33, 34, 35, 36)
Result
Appeals allowed without costs. The High Court’s order appointing an arbitrator was set aside and Arbitration Petition No. 810 of 2016 dismissed. Other remedies between the parties and all other issues and contentions were preserved for appropriate proceedings.