<?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>2016 (7) TMI 1703 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458637</link>
    <description>An arbitration clause in an assigned contract may also pass to the assignee where the contract is transferable and the counterparty&#039;s conduct shows acceptance of the assignee in the original party&#039;s shoes. The court found that performance, payments, correspondence, and extension of the bank guarantee all reflected such acceptance, and there was no term requiring a fresh arbitration agreement after assignment. The tribunal&#039;s view that no arbitration agreement existed because the petitioner was not an original signatory was legally erroneous. The jurisdictional objection was therefore unsustainable, the dismissal was set aside, and the arbitral proceedings were directed to continue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Nov 2024 18:57:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=777364" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (7) TMI 1703 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458637</link>
      <description>An arbitration clause in an assigned contract may also pass to the assignee where the contract is transferable and the counterparty&#039;s conduct shows acceptance of the assignee in the original party&#039;s shoes. The court found that performance, payments, correspondence, and extension of the bank guarantee all reflected such acceptance, and there was no term requiring a fresh arbitration agreement after assignment. The tribunal&#039;s view that no arbitration agreement existed because the petitioner was not an original signatory was legally erroneous. The jurisdictional objection was therefore unsustainable, the dismissal was set aside, and the arbitral proceedings were directed to continue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458637</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>