https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293917 Defendant no.1 was held to be neither a necessary nor a proper party where the pleaded claim arose from a Master Dealer Agreement executed only between plaintiff no.2 and defendant no.2, and its impleadment could not rest on unpleaded or future amendments. The dispute was also found referable to arbitration because the agreement contained an ICC arbitration clause seated in Denmark, and the claim formed part of a composite commercial transaction centred on that agreement. Objections based on non-filing of another copy of the contract did not displace the clause. The suit was therefore disposed of by deletion of defendant no.1 and reference of the parties to arbitration. en-us Thu, 04 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Nov 2024 14:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293917 Defendant no.1 was held to be neither a necessary nor a proper party where the pleaded claim arose from a Master Dealer Agreement executed only between plaintiff no.2 and defendant no.2, and its impleadment could not rest on unpleaded or future amendments. The dispute was also found referable to arbitration because the agreement contained an ICC arbitration clause seated in Denmark, and the claim formed part of a composite commercial transaction centred on that agreement. Objections based on non-filing of another copy of the contract did not displace the clause. The suit was therefore disposed of by deletion of defendant no.1 and reference of the parties to arbitration. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 04 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293917