Supplemental Agreement Case Law

…: The complainant was commissioned to build a main pipe tunnel for the Kallada irrigation project. The work is expected to be completed by 4 to 3.1983. An endorsement agreement is dated… these rights could not have been assigned, since they were contrary to the endorsement of 20.10.1983. 5.M. Tripurari Ray indicated that claim 12 I… the applicant stated, prior to the execution of the endorsement, that he had protested against the execution of the endorsement and… While the endorsement is only an additional part of the original agreement, the compromise clause of the original agreement remains applicable. While the endorsement is independent of the original agreement and the issues agreed in the endorsement are dissociable from those of the original agreement, the compromise clause contained in the original agreement cannot necessarily apply to the endorsement. (a) Both agreements have identical arbitration clauses There is no concrete test to determine whether the endorsement is independent or inseparable. In general, an endorsement provides additional clauses for concluding the original agreement, which means that it can hardly exist independently. In this case notified, the main provisions of the original agreement relate to the construction of a building, without looking at the details of the water and electricity works. The endorsement contains detailed provisions regarding the work of water and electricity.

Although the payment of water and electricity works may be decoupled from the original agreement, the contents of the endorsement remain sub-sections for all construction work on the building. Thus, the Superior People`s Court of the PRC considers that the endorsement is subject to the original agreement and is inseparable from it, so that it is subject to the same arbitration clause under the original agreement. Under these conditions, material disputes can be resolved through arbitration proceedings on the basis of identical arbitration clauses, even if the disputes involve matters within the two agreements. This model is ideal for preventing legal challenges that may arise as part of the original agreement and its addition. … 1991. Similarly, there was no publication of directories for Bombay for 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991. 6. An endorsement was reached on 26 September 1991…

agreement with IPU. It should be noted that by that date, the deadline for the initial agreement of 14 March 1987 between the MTNL and the IPU had expired, again in the agreement… The additional agreement and all IPU/IPU obligations, as well as the rights and privileges and prerogatives provided for MTNL in and under the law, apply and are applicable to the parties and are binding on the parties… If the endorsement does not contain a compromise clause, the arbitration board chosen by the parties in its original agreement is not competent for disputes arising from or related to the endorsement. In this case, the initial agreement of the parties to the dispute provided that “all disputes arising or related to the contract be submitted to the Changde Arbitration Commission.” The endorsement did not contain any dispute resolution clause. The Supreme People`s Court of the PRC decided that, in this context, the content of the endorsement should be considered and whether the supplementary agreement subordinated the compromise clause to particular circumstances under the original agreement.