https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302880 An anti-arbitration injunction was held to be unavailable merely because the arbitration was foreign-seated or because parallel company-law proceedings were pending. Forum non conveniens was found inapplicable, as it governs competing courts and not a court versus an arbitral tribunal, and the seated arbitration remained the parties' chosen contractual forum. The arbitration agreement was not shown to be null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed, since overlapping oppression and mismanagement proceedings did not defeat the arbitration clause. No waiver or abandonment of the right to arbitrate was established from withdrawal of earlier applications or participation in interim proceedings, so the restraint on arbitration was set aside. en-us Thu, 21 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Jun 2022 09:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302880 An anti-arbitration injunction was held to be unavailable merely because the arbitration was foreign-seated or because parallel company-law proceedings were pending. Forum non conveniens was found inapplicable, as it governs competing courts and not a court versus an arbitral tribunal, and the seated arbitration remained the parties' chosen contractual forum. The arbitration agreement was not shown to be null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed, since overlapping oppression and mismanagement proceedings did not defeat the arbitration clause. No waiver or abandonment of the right to arbitrate was established from withdrawal of earlier applications or participation in interim proceedings, so the restraint on arbitration was set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 21 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302880