https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313857 An arbitration clause dated 31 January 2004, read with the 1989 family settlement, was treated as wide enough to cover implementation of the settlement and all connected or incidental matters arising from it. The partition suit, which concerned adjustment of family business and assets among the four branches, was found to fall within that bargain even though some assets and entities were not expressly listed and some parties were not signatories. The presence of later-created companies and additional parties did not prevent reference where the core dispute remained referable to the family arrangement. The disputes were therefore directed to arbitration under Section 8. en-us Fri, 10 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 May 2024 14:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313857 An arbitration clause dated 31 January 2004, read with the 1989 family settlement, was treated as wide enough to cover implementation of the settlement and all connected or incidental matters arising from it. The partition suit, which concerned adjustment of family business and assets among the four branches, was found to fall within that bargain even though some assets and entities were not expressly listed and some parties were not signatories. The presence of later-created companies and additional parties did not prevent reference where the core dispute remained referable to the family arrangement. The disputes were therefore directed to arbitration under Section 8. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 10 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313857