<?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>1980 (10) TMI 198 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159695</link>
    <description>A foreign arbitration clause will not bind parties unless there is consensus ad idem and the clause forms a concluded part of the bargain. Here, contemporaneous objections to foreign arbitration, admitted receipt of those objections, and the parties&#039; later conduct showed that no binding arbitration agreement was established. Even on the assumption of an arbitration clause, stay of the suit remained discretionary and was refused because the dispute was closely connected with India, the evidence was located in India, foreign arbitration would be disproportionately burdensome, and the statutory basis for stay under the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937 was unavailable absent a submission to arbitration under the agreement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Oct 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2020 12:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=337615" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (10) TMI 198 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159695</link>
      <description>A foreign arbitration clause will not bind parties unless there is consensus ad idem and the clause forms a concluded part of the bargain. Here, contemporaneous objections to foreign arbitration, admitted receipt of those objections, and the parties&#039; later conduct showed that no binding arbitration agreement was established. Even on the assumption of an arbitration clause, stay of the suit remained discretionary and was refused because the dispute was closely connected with India, the evidence was located in India, foreign arbitration would be disproportionately burdensome, and the statutory basis for stay under the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937 was unavailable absent a submission to arbitration under the agreement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Oct 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159695</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>