<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2013 (9) TMI 137 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236704</link>
    <description>When parties enter into a later mutually concluded agreement that supersedes an earlier contract, the arbitration clause in the earlier contract does not survive unless expressly preserved in the later arrangement. The later exit paper here was treated as a fresh, comprehensive contract embodying the settled terms and not a mere continuation of the prior agreements, so the separability of the arbitration clause did not save it. Reference to arbitration was therefore rightly refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Nov 2022 15:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=199111" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (9) TMI 137 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236704</link>
      <description>When parties enter into a later mutually concluded agreement that supersedes an earlier contract, the arbitration clause in the earlier contract does not survive unless expressly preserved in the later arrangement. The later exit paper here was treated as a fresh, comprehensive contract embodying the settled terms and not a mere continuation of the prior agreements, so the separability of the arbitration clause did not save it. Reference to arbitration was therefore rightly refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236704</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>