<?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>2022 (11) TMI 682 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430258</link>
    <description>A non-signatory company could not be compelled to join a partnership arbitration because the record did not show mutual intention to bind it, participation in the contract&#039;s negotiation or performance, or the kind of direct commonality required under the group of companies doctrine. Allegations of ordinary partnership disputes, including debts, accounts, profits, losses and internal business claims, remained arbitrable. Claims alleging forged documents, misuse of GST registration, siphoning of goods and other third-party or criminal implications were treated as serious fraud allegations and were excluded from arbitration. The arbitral reference was therefore confined to the inter se partnership disputes, with the non-signatory company and fraud-based third-party claims left out.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2022 21:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=695897" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (11) TMI 682 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430258</link>
      <description>A non-signatory company could not be compelled to join a partnership arbitration because the record did not show mutual intention to bind it, participation in the contract&#039;s negotiation or performance, or the kind of direct commonality required under the group of companies doctrine. Allegations of ordinary partnership disputes, including debts, accounts, profits, losses and internal business claims, remained arbitrable. Claims alleging forged documents, misuse of GST registration, siphoning of goods and other third-party or criminal implications were treated as serious fraud allegations and were excluded from arbitration. The arbitral reference was therefore confined to the inter se partnership disputes, with the non-signatory company and fraud-based third-party claims left out.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430258</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>