<?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>2018 (10) TMI 1883 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293684</link>
    <description>An arbitration clause printed on a bill of lading can bind the parties where the document expressly incorporates all its printed terms and the reference to those terms is sufficiently clear under Section 7(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Supreme Court held that an arbitration agreement must be in writing but need not be signed, and that a party cannot rely on the bill of lading for its claim while rejecting the incorporated arbitration clause. The pendency of the suit at the evidence stage did not bar a Section 8 application. The clause was therefore treated as part of the contract and the dispute was referred to arbitration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2025 11:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=637222" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (10) TMI 1883 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293684</link>
      <description>An arbitration clause printed on a bill of lading can bind the parties where the document expressly incorporates all its printed terms and the reference to those terms is sufficiently clear under Section 7(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Supreme Court held that an arbitration agreement must be in writing but need not be signed, and that a party cannot rely on the bill of lading for its claim while rejecting the incorporated arbitration clause. The pendency of the suit at the evidence stage did not bar a Section 8 application. The clause was therefore treated as part of the contract and the dispute was referred to arbitration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293684</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>