https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456408 Interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was declined because no concluded and enforceable contract was shown. The correspondence indicated that one party had circulated a signed agreement, but the other never countersigned it and instead sought amendments to material terms, including the deal structure, release sequence, and consideration. The court held that these exchanges did not establish consensus ad idem on the essential covenants, so there was no prima facie basis for specific enforcement or injunctive relief in aid of arbitration. Having found no binding contract, the court did not examine balance of convenience or irreparable injury, and principles relating to unsigned but otherwise concluded contracts were held inapplicable. en-us Mon, 05 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Jul 2024 20:10:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456408 Interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was declined because no concluded and enforceable contract was shown. The correspondence indicated that one party had circulated a signed agreement, but the other never countersigned it and instead sought amendments to material terms, including the deal structure, release sequence, and consideration. The court held that these exchanges did not establish consensus ad idem on the essential covenants, so there was no prima facie basis for specific enforcement or injunctive relief in aid of arbitration. Having found no binding contract, the court did not examine balance of convenience or irreparable injury, and principles relating to unsigned but otherwise concluded contracts were held inapplicable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 05 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456408