https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108511 The court dismissed the petitions, ruling them as misconceived and not maintainable under section 33 of the Arbitration Act. The court emphasized that the relief sought by the petitioners regarding the contracts' validity was more suited for a civil court's jurisdiction, as it involved the determination of contract enforceability, not solely arbitration agreements. The parties were directed to bear their own costs, underscoring the necessity for civil court intervention in cases questioning contract validity rather than arbitration agreements. en-us Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Mar 2012 18:52:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108511 The court dismissed the petitions, ruling them as misconceived and not maintainable under section 33 of the Arbitration Act. The court emphasized that the relief sought by the petitioners regarding the contracts' validity was more suited for a civil court's jurisdiction, as it involved the determination of contract enforceability, not solely arbitration agreements. The parties were directed to bear their own costs, underscoring the necessity for civil court intervention in cases questioning contract validity rather than arbitration agreements. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108511