https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753446 A foreign bankruptcy moratorium did not, by itself, require stay or adjournment of an Indian civil suit. Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was held not to apply because pendency of proceedings in a foreign court does not bar trial of a suit in India, and the matter was not one for enforcement of a foreign decree or administration of foreign insolvency assets. The moratorium order could be considered as a relevant factor, but it created no binding obligation to halt the Indian proceedings. The court therefore retained jurisdiction to continue with the anti-arbitration suit. en-us Wed, 22 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Jun 2024 15:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753446 A foreign bankruptcy moratorium did not, by itself, require stay or adjournment of an Indian civil suit. Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was held not to apply because pendency of proceedings in a foreign court does not bar trial of a suit in India, and the matter was not one for enforcement of a foreign decree or administration of foreign insolvency assets. The moratorium order could be considered as a relevant factor, but it created no binding obligation to halt the Indian proceedings. The court therefore retained jurisdiction to continue with the anti-arbitration suit. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Wed, 22 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753446