<?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>2003 (11) TMI 638 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295539</link>
    <description>Where a civil suit is founded entirely on rights and liabilities created by a share purchase agreement and related memorandum containing an arbitration clause, the whole dispute must be referred to arbitration under Section 8. Objections that a later agreement had superseded the earlier contract, that the arbitration clause had ceased to operate, or that prior participation barred reference were treated as issues going to the existence, validity, or subsistence of the arbitration agreement, which are for the arbitral tribunal under Section 16. The suit could not be split when its entire subject-matter fell within the arbitration clause, and reference to arbitration was therefore mandatory.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Jun 2021 17:33:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=646287" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (11) TMI 638 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295539</link>
      <description>Where a civil suit is founded entirely on rights and liabilities created by a share purchase agreement and related memorandum containing an arbitration clause, the whole dispute must be referred to arbitration under Section 8. Objections that a later agreement had superseded the earlier contract, that the arbitration clause had ceased to operate, or that prior participation barred reference were treated as issues going to the existence, validity, or subsistence of the arbitration agreement, which are for the arbitral tribunal under Section 16. The suit could not be split when its entire subject-matter fell within the arbitration clause, and reference to arbitration was therefore mandatory.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295539</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>