https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200880 The court confirmed the necessity of multiple Arbitral Tribunals due to distinct arbitration clauses in each contract. The Memorandum of Understanding did not subsume an overarching arbitration clause. Specific arbitrators were appointed for each Tribunal, ensuring separate Tribunals for international and domestic disputes. The decision emphasized the legislative intent of the 2015 Amendment to limit court intervention to the existence of arbitration agreements. Arbitration Petition No. 30 of 2016 was allowed, while Arbitration Petition No. 31 of 2016 and Transfer Cases Nos. 25/2017, 26/2017, 27/2017, and 28/2017 were disposed of accordingly, with each party bearing its own costs. en-us Tue, 10 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Nov 2021 14:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200880 The court confirmed the necessity of multiple Arbitral Tribunals due to distinct arbitration clauses in each contract. The Memorandum of Understanding did not subsume an overarching arbitration clause. Specific arbitrators were appointed for each Tribunal, ensuring separate Tribunals for international and domestic disputes. The decision emphasized the legislative intent of the 2015 Amendment to limit court intervention to the existence of arbitration agreements. Arbitration Petition No. 30 of 2016 was allowed, while Arbitration Petition No. 31 of 2016 and Transfer Cases Nos. 25/2017, 26/2017, 27/2017, and 28/2017 were disposed of accordingly, with each party bearing its own costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 10 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200880