https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775137 Under Section 11 of the 1996 Act, the referral court must conduct only a limited prima facie examination of whether an arbitration agreement exists, while the tribunal's competence to rule on jurisdiction does not remove that threshold judicial scrutiny. Clause 13 did not satisfy Section 7 because it used permissive, future-contingent language and did not show a present binding intention to submit disputes to arbitration as of right. Clause 32, which fixed civil court jurisdiction for tender disputes, did not independently create or negate arbitration. The contractual reference therefore was not a binding arbitration agreement, and appointment of an arbitrator was unsustainable. en-us Fri, 18 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Jul 2025 08:43:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775137 Under Section 11 of the 1996 Act, the referral court must conduct only a limited prima facie examination of whether an arbitration agreement exists, while the tribunal's competence to rule on jurisdiction does not remove that threshold judicial scrutiny. Clause 13 did not satisfy Section 7 because it used permissive, future-contingent language and did not show a present binding intention to submit disputes to arbitration as of right. Clause 32, which fixed civil court jurisdiction for tender disputes, did not independently create or negate arbitration. The contractual reference therefore was not a binding arbitration agreement, and appointment of an arbitrator was unsustainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 18 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775137