<?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>2025 (8) TMI 1394 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777206</link>
    <description>A binding arbitration agreement may be inferred from written communications and party conduct, even without a signed contract, where the record shows consensus on commercial terms and acceptance of the contractual arrangement. Here, the email exchange, the later contract incorporating the agreed terms and arbitration clause, and the respondent&#039;s conduct in accepting supply and issuing standby letters of credit referring to the contract number supported assent. At the referral stage, the court had to take only a prima facie view of the arbitration agreement&#039;s existence and was not to conduct a full trial on validity. The disputes were therefore liable to be referred to arbitration, and refusal to refer was incorrect.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2025 08:41:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=846105" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (8) TMI 1394 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777206</link>
      <description>A binding arbitration agreement may be inferred from written communications and party conduct, even without a signed contract, where the record shows consensus on commercial terms and acceptance of the contractual arrangement. Here, the email exchange, the later contract incorporating the agreed terms and arbitration clause, and the respondent&#039;s conduct in accepting supply and issuing standby letters of credit referring to the contract number supported assent. At the referral stage, the court had to take only a prima facie view of the arbitration agreement&#039;s existence and was not to conduct a full trial on validity. The disputes were therefore liable to be referred to arbitration, and refusal to refer was incorrect.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777206</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>