https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463850 In a Section 11 petition, the Court confined its inquiry to the existence of an arbitration agreement and left merits-based objections, including constructive res judicata and alleged prematurity of the claim, to the arbitral tribunal. It held that the earlier arbitration did not, on the record, decide the present repayment and guarantee-enforcement cause of action after election of the repayment remedy. The Court further held that Items 16 and 24 of the Fifth Schedule concern disclosure of relationships or prior involvement creating justifiable doubts, and that prior service as an independent arbitrator between the parties does not by itself create disqualification or a legally cognisable conflict. No de jure ineligibility under the Seventh Schedule was shown, so reference to arbitration was made. en-us Thu, 23 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Sep 2025 18:35:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463850 In a Section 11 petition, the Court confined its inquiry to the existence of an arbitration agreement and left merits-based objections, including constructive res judicata and alleged prematurity of the claim, to the arbitral tribunal. It held that the earlier arbitration did not, on the record, decide the present repayment and guarantee-enforcement cause of action after election of the repayment remedy. The Court further held that Items 16 and 24 of the Fifth Schedule concern disclosure of relationships or prior involvement creating justifiable doubts, and that prior service as an independent arbitrator between the parties does not by itself create disqualification or a legally cognisable conflict. No de jure ineligibility under the Seventh Schedule was shown, so reference to arbitration was made. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 23 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463850