https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199516 Under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act, a stay of suit could be refused where serious allegations of fraud, collusion and conspiracy were made against a contracting party and the court considered public vindication relevant. The court treated the written bought note and sold note as the operative contract and noted that an asserted cheque-payment term inconsistent with the written cash clause could not readily displace the written terms. Because the dispute went to the genuineness and legal effect of the written contract, and the fraud allegations were substantial, the stay of arbitration was declined and the suit was allowed to proceed in court. en-us Mon, 04 Feb 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Mar 2018 17:20:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199516 Under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act, a stay of suit could be refused where serious allegations of fraud, collusion and conspiracy were made against a contracting party and the court considered public vindication relevant. The court treated the written bought note and sold note as the operative contract and noted that an asserted cheque-payment term inconsistent with the written cash clause could not readily displace the written terms. Because the dispute went to the genuineness and legal effect of the written contract, and the fraud allegations were substantial, the stay of arbitration was declined and the suit was allowed to proceed in court. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 04 Feb 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199516