<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2014 (12) TMI 1362 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288919</link>
    <description>A written arbitration agreement may be inferred from the parties&#039; correspondence and conduct, even without signatures from both sides. In commercial contracts, effect is given to the parties&#039; intention, and technical objections will not defeat an agreed arbitral framework. The parties&#039; exchange of letters and emails, acceptance of amended payment terms, and conduct under the sales contract supported the inference that they had agreed to arbitration at the Singapore Commodity Exchange. The counterclaim filed before the tribunal also showed submission to the arbitral process. No valid ground was shown to resist enforcement under Part II, so the foreign award was upheld and enforced.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 05 Jul 2020 15:18:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=616709" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (12) TMI 1362 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288919</link>
      <description>A written arbitration agreement may be inferred from the parties&#039; correspondence and conduct, even without signatures from both sides. In commercial contracts, effect is given to the parties&#039; intention, and technical objections will not defeat an agreed arbitral framework. The parties&#039; exchange of letters and emails, acceptance of amended payment terms, and conduct under the sales contract supported the inference that they had agreed to arbitration at the Singapore Commodity Exchange. The counterclaim filed before the tribunal also showed submission to the arbitral process. No valid ground was shown to resist enforcement under Part II, so the foreign award was upheld and enforced.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288919</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>