https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91942 The SC allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench judgment and the learned Judge's order, and directed enforcement of the arbitration agreement. The Court held that an arbitration agreement was concluded by conduct and email exchanges reflected in Contract No. 061-16-12115-S, notwithstanding lack of a signature by respondent, and that respondent's acceptance and performance established binding consent including clause 32.2. Invocation under s.45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was held proper; only prima facie proof of an arbitration agreement was required at the referral stage under the Kompetenz-Kompetenz doctrine, leaving substantive disputes of validity for the arbitral tribunal. en-us Wed, 27 Aug 2025 08:41:03 +0530 Wed, 27 Aug 2025 08:41:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91942 The SC allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench judgment and the learned Judge's order, and directed enforcement of the arbitration agreement. The Court held that an arbitration agreement was concluded by conduct and email exchanges reflected in Contract No. 061-16-12115-S, notwithstanding lack of a signature by respondent, and that respondent's acceptance and performance established binding consent including clause 32.2. Invocation under s.45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was held proper; only prima facie proof of an arbitration agreement was required at the referral stage under the Kompetenz-Kompetenz doctrine, leaving substantive disputes of validity for the arbitral tribunal. Highlights Indian Laws Wed, 27 Aug 2025 08:41:03 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91942