https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279654 A valid reference to arbitration made before institution of the suit was not retrospectively destroyed by the suit, and the arbitrators did not become functus officio in a manner that prevented continuation of the reference. The applicable tribunal rules allowed substitution of new arbitrators and continuation of the dispute before a reconstituted tribunal, on the existing record or de novo after a stay. Where parties had agreed to arbitration, the Court held that the suit should ordinarily be stayed unless sufficient cause against a stay was shown; no bias, special legal issue, or other adequate ground was established, and participation in the arbitration did not displace the contractual reference. The suit was therefore required to be stayed under Section 19 of the Indian Arbitration Act. en-us Tue, 09 Mar 1920 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Mar 2019 17:29:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279654 A valid reference to arbitration made before institution of the suit was not retrospectively destroyed by the suit, and the arbitrators did not become functus officio in a manner that prevented continuation of the reference. The applicable tribunal rules allowed substitution of new arbitrators and continuation of the dispute before a reconstituted tribunal, on the existing record or de novo after a stay. Where parties had agreed to arbitration, the Court held that the suit should ordinarily be stayed unless sufficient cause against a stay was shown; no bias, special legal issue, or other adequate ground was established, and participation in the arbitration did not displace the contractual reference. The suit was therefore required to be stayed under Section 19 of the Indian Arbitration Act. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 09 Mar 1920 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279654