https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287179 Under the pre-S.B.P. & Co. regime, the existence of an arbitration agreement and whether the claim fell within the arbitration clause were not to be finally determined in a Section 11 proceeding when the tender acceptance, acceptance letter, and clause 25A raised a jurisdictional dispute. Those objections were left to the arbitrator, who could decide them under Section 16. The challenge to appointment of the arbitrator was rejected, and the dispute was remitted to the arbitral tribunal. en-us Wed, 25 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Apr 2020 16:28:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287179 Under the pre-S.B.P. & Co. regime, the existence of an arbitration agreement and whether the claim fell within the arbitration clause were not to be finally determined in a Section 11 proceeding when the tender acceptance, acceptance letter, and clause 25A raised a jurisdictional dispute. Those objections were left to the arbitrator, who could decide them under Section 16. The challenge to appointment of the arbitrator was rejected, and the dispute was remitted to the arbitral tribunal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 25 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287179