<?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>2023 (4) TMI 652 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436626</link>
    <description>At Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the referral court applies only a narrow prima facie scrutiny of the arbitration agreement and may decline reference where the record shows the claim is manifestly non-arbitrable. Where the underlying grievance was never raised during the contract, the parties entered into and acted upon a comprehensive settlement, and a later allegation of coercion or economic duress appears only after receipt of settlement benefits, the court may treat the proposed reference as ex facie frivolous and dishonest. The settlement was held to have discharged the disputes, so the later request for arbitration could not be used to reopen accord and satisfaction, and the appointment of an arbitrator was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 May 2025 16:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=710968" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (4) TMI 652 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436626</link>
      <description>At Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the referral court applies only a narrow prima facie scrutiny of the arbitration agreement and may decline reference where the record shows the claim is manifestly non-arbitrable. Where the underlying grievance was never raised during the contract, the parties entered into and acted upon a comprehensive settlement, and a later allegation of coercion or economic duress appears only after receipt of settlement benefits, the court may treat the proposed reference as ex facie frivolous and dishonest. The settlement was held to have discharged the disputes, so the later request for arbitration could not be used to reopen accord and satisfaction, and the appointment of an arbitrator was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436626</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>