<?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>2021 (9) TMI 1053 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412708</link>
    <description>At the Section 11 stage, the Court held that only a limited prima facie review is required to confirm a written arbitration agreement and an arbitrable dispute, while screening out deadwood. Construing the share purchase agreements and construction management services agreements harmoniously, it found that the completion notice, construction obligation and fee disputes arose under the construction agreements, not the share sale transaction, so the India-seated arbitration clause applied and the SIAC objection failed. Because the two construction contracts were linked and separate tribunals risked duplication and inconsistent awards, the disputes were referred to one common sole arbitrator.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Sep 2021 07:20:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=656756" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (9) TMI 1053 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412708</link>
      <description>At the Section 11 stage, the Court held that only a limited prima facie review is required to confirm a written arbitration agreement and an arbitrable dispute, while screening out deadwood. Construing the share purchase agreements and construction management services agreements harmoniously, it found that the completion notice, construction obligation and fee disputes arose under the construction agreements, not the share sale transaction, so the India-seated arbitration clause applied and the SIAC objection failed. Because the two construction contracts were linked and separate tribunals risked duplication and inconsistent awards, the disputes were referred to one common sole arbitrator.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412708</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>