https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103354 A petition under section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 could not be used to assail the underlying lease transactions as a whole merely because they contained an arbitration clause; the challenge was treated as directed at the contract containing the clause rather than as a separate bar to maintainability. The petition was also time-barred, since the agreements had been acted upon for years and the challenge was brought more than three years after knowledge of the dispute, attracting article 137. On validity, the court relied on the company's articles, express authorisation, subsequent ratification through conduct, and the doctrine of indoor management to hold that the lease agreements and arbitration clause were valid and binding. en-us Wed, 30 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:52:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103354 A petition under section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 could not be used to assail the underlying lease transactions as a whole merely because they contained an arbitration clause; the challenge was treated as directed at the contract containing the clause rather than as a separate bar to maintainability. The petition was also time-barred, since the agreements had been acted upon for years and the challenge was brought more than three years after knowledge of the dispute, attracting article 137. On validity, the court relied on the company's articles, express authorisation, subsequent ratification through conduct, and the doctrine of indoor management to hold that the lease agreements and arbitration clause were valid and binding. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 30 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103354