https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416202 The court found that the Facility Agreement was valid despite missing signatures, and disputes should be resolved by the Arbitral Tribunal. Mr. Yadav's signing bound the LLP, and issues of authority and fraud were to be examined by the Arbitral Tribunal. Respondent No. 4, an alter ego of another respondent, was to be referred to arbitration under the 'group of companies doctrine.' The existence of an arbitration agreement was upheld, and disputes, including those involving non-signatory parties, were to be arbitrated. The petition was allowed, appointing a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes under the Facility Agreement. en-us Thu, 09 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Dec 2021 10:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416202 The court found that the Facility Agreement was valid despite missing signatures, and disputes should be resolved by the Arbitral Tribunal. Mr. Yadav's signing bound the LLP, and issues of authority and fraud were to be examined by the Arbitral Tribunal. Respondent No. 4, an alter ego of another respondent, was to be referred to arbitration under the 'group of companies doctrine.' The existence of an arbitration agreement was upheld, and disputes, including those involving non-signatory parties, were to be arbitrated. The petition was allowed, appointing a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes under the Facility Agreement. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 09 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416202