https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194236 A petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was treated as maintainable for petitioners who were, in substance, part of the contracting group that entered the arbitration agreement, even though the first petitioner alone could not sustain maintainability on the record. Objections that the request for arbitration was premature, that pre-arbitral discussion or mediation had not been exhausted, and that the disputes were non-arbitrable were rejected. The existence of live disputes concerning equity participation and transfer of technology under the agreement was sufficient to justify reference to arbitration, and a sole arbitrator was appointed. en-us Mon, 24 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Sep 2017 11:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194236 A petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was treated as maintainable for petitioners who were, in substance, part of the contracting group that entered the arbitration agreement, even though the first petitioner alone could not sustain maintainability on the record. Objections that the request for arbitration was premature, that pre-arbitral discussion or mediation had not been exhausted, and that the disputes were non-arbitrable were rejected. The existence of live disputes concerning equity participation and transfer of technology under the agreement was sufficient to justify reference to arbitration, and a sole arbitrator was appointed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 24 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194236