https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438756 Mere filing of an insolvency application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 does not by itself bar appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; the statutory bar under Section 238 arises only after admission of the insolvency petition and commencement of insolvency proceedings. The Court also held that the existence of a dispute must be assessed on the full correspondence and surrounding facts, while questions on the effect of an alleged admission or the substantive limitation defence are generally for the arbitrator to decide. On that basis, the objections based on pending insolvency, absence of dispute, and limitation did not prevent reference to arbitration. en-us Mon, 05 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Jun 2023 09:08:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438756 Mere filing of an insolvency application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 does not by itself bar appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; the statutory bar under Section 238 arises only after admission of the insolvency petition and commencement of insolvency proceedings. The Court also held that the existence of a dispute must be assessed on the full correspondence and surrounding facts, while questions on the effect of an alleged admission or the substantive limitation defence are generally for the arbitrator to decide. On that basis, the objections based on pending insolvency, absence of dispute, and limitation did not prevent reference to arbitration. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Mon, 05 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438756