https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105744 A Delhi High Court note on recovery proceedings held that a civil suit could not proceed where the dispute was already covered by a subsisting arbitration agreement, because Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 requires mandatory reference to arbitration when the subject-matter is the same. The Court treated the loan and guarantee arrangements as intrinsically linked, held that the jurisdiction clause did not exclude arbitration, and warned against parallel proceedings and conflicting decisions. It also noted that statutory protection for a sick industrial company could bar enforcement of guarantees in the circumstances, reinforcing the refusal to continue the civil suit. en-us Tue, 21 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Mar 2012 13:27:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105744 A Delhi High Court note on recovery proceedings held that a civil suit could not proceed where the dispute was already covered by a subsisting arbitration agreement, because Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 requires mandatory reference to arbitration when the subject-matter is the same. The Court treated the loan and guarantee arrangements as intrinsically linked, held that the jurisdiction clause did not exclude arbitration, and warned against parallel proceedings and conflicting decisions. It also noted that statutory protection for a sick industrial company could bar enforcement of guarantees in the circumstances, reinforcing the refusal to continue the civil suit. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 21 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105744