https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281377 An arbitration agreement was held to exist where the written contract incorporated the special conditions containing the arbitration clause, and separate signatures on those conditions were not required under Section 7(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Delhi High Court territorial jurisdiction was also affirmed because the tender process, acceptance and negotiations occurred in Delhi, so part of the cause of action arose there and the contract came into existence in Delhi under Section 4 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. However, a Section 11(6) petition filed in the name of a sole proprietorship concern was held not maintainable because the concern is not a legal entity capable of suing in its own name, and the defect was not cured by Order XXX CPC. en-us Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Jun 2019 17:18:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281377 An arbitration agreement was held to exist where the written contract incorporated the special conditions containing the arbitration clause, and separate signatures on those conditions were not required under Section 7(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Delhi High Court territorial jurisdiction was also affirmed because the tender process, acceptance and negotiations occurred in Delhi, so part of the cause of action arose there and the contract came into existence in Delhi under Section 4 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. However, a Section 11(6) petition filed in the name of a sole proprietorship concern was held not maintainable because the concern is not a legal entity capable of suing in its own name, and the defect was not cured by Order XXX CPC. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281377