https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264144 An arbitration petition under Section 11(6) was held maintainable despite apparent confusion in the description of the contracting parties, because the letters of intent and correspondence showed that the entities referred to were in substance the same applicant for the sub-contracts. The Court treated the misdescription as non-fatal and held that objections based on alleged non-fulfilment of contractual obligations were matters for the arbitrator, not a bar to appointment. The petition was therefore allowed and an arbitrator appointed. The decision applies the principle that a mere party misdescription does not defeat referral where the record clearly establishes the contracting entity and the dispute otherwise falls within the arbitral domain. en-us Wed, 09 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Sep 2015 06:46:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264144 An arbitration petition under Section 11(6) was held maintainable despite apparent confusion in the description of the contracting parties, because the letters of intent and correspondence showed that the entities referred to were in substance the same applicant for the sub-contracts. The Court treated the misdescription as non-fatal and held that objections based on alleged non-fulfilment of contractual obligations were matters for the arbitrator, not a bar to appointment. The petition was therefore allowed and an arbitrator appointed. The decision applies the principle that a mere party misdescription does not defeat referral where the record clearly establishes the contracting entity and the dispute otherwise falls within the arbitral domain. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 09 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264144