https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767389 A contractor who is not a party to an agreement containing an arbitration clause cannot invoke that clause merely because the project owner made some payments directly to it. The contractual position remains governed by the principal agreement between the owner and the main contractor, and direct payment to a subcontractor does not by itself make the subcontractor a beneficiary under that contract for arbitration purposes. The operative point is that entitlement to rely on the arbitration clause depends on contractual privity or a clear contractual basis, not on payment mechanics alone. en-us Wed, 19 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Mar 2025 08:35:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767389 A contractor who is not a party to an agreement containing an arbitration clause cannot invoke that clause merely because the project owner made some payments directly to it. The contractual position remains governed by the principal agreement between the owner and the main contractor, and direct payment to a subcontractor does not by itself make the subcontractor a beneficiary under that contract for arbitration purposes. The operative point is that entitlement to rely on the arbitration clause depends on contractual privity or a clear contractual basis, not on payment mechanics alone. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 19 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767389