<?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 (4) TMI 1356 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307499</link>
    <description>At the Section 11 referral stage, the Court&#039;s inquiry is limited to a prima facie examination of whether an arbitration agreement exists, and it should not finally decide disputed issues such as novation, accord and satisfaction, coercion, or the validity of a settlement agreement. Where the contract contains an arbitration clause, a contention that the contract was discharged by settlement is ordinarily for the arbitral tribunal, unless the objection is ex facie untenable. The Court also held that the petition was not premature for want of pre-arbitral steps, as amicable resolution was sought, an adjudicator was requested, and arbitration was invoked, but no adjudicator was appointed. The matter was therefore referred to arbitration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Apr 2023 08:42:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=711022" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (4) TMI 1356 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307499</link>
      <description>At the Section 11 referral stage, the Court&#039;s inquiry is limited to a prima facie examination of whether an arbitration agreement exists, and it should not finally decide disputed issues such as novation, accord and satisfaction, coercion, or the validity of a settlement agreement. Where the contract contains an arbitration clause, a contention that the contract was discharged by settlement is ordinarily for the arbitral tribunal, unless the objection is ex facie untenable. The Court also held that the petition was not premature for want of pre-arbitral steps, as amicable resolution was sought, an adjudicator was requested, and arbitration was invoked, but no adjudicator was appointed. The matter was therefore referred to arbitration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307499</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>