https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199437 The State was treated as successor in interest to the Charge Chrome Division because the takeover ordinance and agreement showed transfer of assets and liabilities, including claims under prior contracts. On that basis, the arbitration clause covered the dispute and the statutory conditions for a stay under Section 3 of the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961 were satisfied, making the stay mandatory. The plaint also could not be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC because only the plaint averments are relevant at that stage and those averments disclosed a cause of action; the challenge went to enforceability of the contract rather than a clear absence of pleading. The suit was stayed and rejection of the plaint was not warranted. en-us Tue, 16 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Feb 2018 16:12:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199437 The State was treated as successor in interest to the Charge Chrome Division because the takeover ordinance and agreement showed transfer of assets and liabilities, including claims under prior contracts. On that basis, the arbitration clause covered the dispute and the statutory conditions for a stay under Section 3 of the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961 were satisfied, making the stay mandatory. The plaint also could not be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC because only the plaint averments are relevant at that stage and those averments disclosed a cause of action; the challenge went to enforceability of the contract rather than a clear absence of pleading. The suit was stayed and rejection of the plaint was not warranted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 16 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199437