https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165193 A stay of suit under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 required a subsisting arbitration agreement, a dispute within that clause, and a timely application. The Supreme Court held that where liability under the suit contract was admitted and no defence existed to the suit claim, a separate asserted liability arising under an independent contract did not create a dispute under or in connection with the contract sued upon. Mere withholding of payment on the basis of a cross-claim under another contract therefore did not justify a stay, and the refusal to stay the suit was upheld. en-us Wed, 27 Mar 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Aug 2014 19:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165193 A stay of suit under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 required a subsisting arbitration agreement, a dispute within that clause, and a timely application. The Supreme Court held that where liability under the suit contract was admitted and no defence existed to the suit claim, a separate asserted liability arising under an independent contract did not create a dispute under or in connection with the contract sued upon. Mere withholding of payment on the basis of a cross-claim under another contract therefore did not justify a stay, and the refusal to stay the suit was upheld. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 27 Mar 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165193