https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359764 A post-1996 partnership clause referring to arbitration under the repealed 1940 Act remained a valid arbitration agreement because it satisfied Section 7 of the 1996 Act and clearly showed an intention to arbitrate. Section 85 displaced the 1940 Act for proceedings commenced under the 1996 regime, so an incorrect statutory reference did not defeat the clause. The proper approach was to read the agreement consistently with the 1996 Act rather than deny arbitration altogether. The dispute was therefore referable to arbitration under the 1996 Act, and the contrary view below was set aside. en-us Wed, 02 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 May 2018 19:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359764 A post-1996 partnership clause referring to arbitration under the repealed 1940 Act remained a valid arbitration agreement because it satisfied Section 7 of the 1996 Act and clearly showed an intention to arbitrate. Section 85 displaced the 1940 Act for proceedings commenced under the 1996 regime, so an incorrect statutory reference did not defeat the clause. The proper approach was to read the agreement consistently with the 1996 Act rather than deny arbitration altogether. The dispute was therefore referable to arbitration under the 1996 Act, and the contrary view below was set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 02 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359764