<?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>2003 (10) TMI 679 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199383</link>
    <description>Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act may be declined in rare exceptional cases where the arbitration agreement itself appears non-existent, invalid, or procured by coercion, and where the pleaded disputes are not fully covered by the arbitration clause. Although arbitral jurisdiction is generally for the tribunal to examine, the civil court may still assess whether a valid arbitration agreement exists and whether the suit is covered by it. On the facts discussed, the memorandum of understanding and arbitration clause were alleged to have been obtained while the plaintiff was in custody and under threat, and the claims for declaration and damages extended beyond the clause. Reference to arbitration was therefore refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Feb 2018 15:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=510720" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (10) TMI 679 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199383</link>
      <description>Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act may be declined in rare exceptional cases where the arbitration agreement itself appears non-existent, invalid, or procured by coercion, and where the pleaded disputes are not fully covered by the arbitration clause. Although arbitral jurisdiction is generally for the tribunal to examine, the civil court may still assess whether a valid arbitration agreement exists and whether the suit is covered by it. On the facts discussed, the memorandum of understanding and arbitration clause were alleged to have been obtained while the plaintiff was in custody and under threat, and the claims for declaration and damages extended beyond the clause. Reference to arbitration was therefore refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199383</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>