<?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>2008 (10) TMI 697 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199193</link>
    <description>Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 permits refusal of reference where the arbitration agreement is proved null and void, inoperative, or incapable of performance. The clause here was not shown to be void on any recognised contractual ground, and severability prevented attack on the arbitration clause merely because the main joint venture agreement was challenged. The court treated the clause as inoperative because the parties&#039; conduct, including multiple proceedings and prior relief before the Company Law Board, had substantially overtaken the dispute. Reference was also refused because the claim extended to non-signatories who could not be compelled to arbitrate, making bifurcation impracticable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Feb 2018 15:09:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=510036" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (10) TMI 697 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199193</link>
      <description>Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 permits refusal of reference where the arbitration agreement is proved null and void, inoperative, or incapable of performance. The clause here was not shown to be void on any recognised contractual ground, and severability prevented attack on the arbitration clause merely because the main joint venture agreement was challenged. The court treated the clause as inoperative because the parties&#039; conduct, including multiple proceedings and prior relief before the Company Law Board, had substantially overtaken the dispute. Reference was also refused because the claim extended to non-signatories who could not be compelled to arbitrate, making bifurcation impracticable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199193</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>