https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189099 On an application for stay under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the court may incidentally examine the validity and binding nature of the parent contract where that issue is directly raised, and it may determine the matter on affidavits if the material is sufficient. A contract is not void for mutual mistake unless the mistake goes to an essential element of the subject matter; a complaint about performance or quality is insufficient. The agreement was also not shown to be illegal or void for breach of import permission or licence conditions, so disputes under the contract remained within the wide arbitration clause. Only illegality or mistake going to the root of the bargain would exclude arbitrability. en-us Mon, 06 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Dec 2016 10:37:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189099 On an application for stay under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the court may incidentally examine the validity and binding nature of the parent contract where that issue is directly raised, and it may determine the matter on affidavits if the material is sufficient. A contract is not void for mutual mistake unless the mistake goes to an essential element of the subject matter; a complaint about performance or quality is insufficient. The agreement was also not shown to be illegal or void for breach of import permission or licence conditions, so disputes under the contract remained within the wide arbitration clause. Only illegality or mistake going to the root of the bargain would exclude arbitrability. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 06 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189099