https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288043 Disputes arising from the agreement dated 14.06.2006 were referable to arbitration because the civil claims for recovery and royalty stemmed from rights and obligations under that written arrangement. Although the deed of adherence was not signed, the jointly incorporated company was formed pursuant to the agreement and relied on its substantive terms in the suits. It could not accept the beneficial provisions of the agreement while rejecting the arbitration clause. Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was not a bar where the dispute arose from a defined legal relationship reflected in the agreement and connected arrangements. en-us Thu, 19 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 May 2020 09:42:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288043 Disputes arising from the agreement dated 14.06.2006 were referable to arbitration because the civil claims for recovery and royalty stemmed from rights and obligations under that written arrangement. Although the deed of adherence was not signed, the jointly incorporated company was formed pursuant to the agreement and relied on its substantive terms in the suits. It could not accept the beneficial provisions of the agreement while rejecting the arbitration clause. Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was not a bar where the dispute arose from a defined legal relationship reflected in the agreement and connected arrangements. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 19 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288043