https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459753 A contractual monetary claim arising from a subsisting sub-licence agreement remained arbitrable despite pending competition proceedings, because the Competition Commission could address alleged competition-law contraventions but could not adjudicate recovery of contractual dues. Section 61 of the Competition Act barred only matters the Commission or Appellate Tribunal was empowered to determine, so the arbitral tribunal retained jurisdiction over the in personam claim. Interference with the award was also ? No, no interference was warranted on challenges based on competition law, patent law, plant variety law, or state price-control notifications, as no final order had voided the agreement and the tribunal's factual findings were not shown to be perverse or patently illegal. en-us Thu, 23 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Dec 2024 17:16:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459753 A contractual monetary claim arising from a subsisting sub-licence agreement remained arbitrable despite pending competition proceedings, because the Competition Commission could address alleged competition-law contraventions but could not adjudicate recovery of contractual dues. Section 61 of the Competition Act barred only matters the Commission or Appellate Tribunal was empowered to determine, so the arbitral tribunal retained jurisdiction over the in personam claim. Interference with the award was also ? No, no interference was warranted on challenges based on competition law, patent law, plant variety law, or state price-control notifications, as no final order had voided the agreement and the tribunal's factual findings were not shown to be perverse or patently illegal. Case-Laws Law of Competition Thu, 23 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459753