https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781961 SC dismissed the petition under Section 11(6) read with Section 11(12)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that the disputes arise from a principal agreement providing for arbitration seated in Benin, making it an international commercial arbitration governed by Part II, not Part I. Consequently, recourse to Section 11 was held legally untenable. SC accepted the Delhi HC's prior findings under Section 45 as creating issue estoppel on the questions of operative agreement, seat of arbitration, and scope of arbitration clauses. SC further held that the group of companies doctrine was inapplicable, as no compelling intention to bind non-signatories to the arbitration agreement was shown. en-us Fri, 21 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Nov 2025 08:57:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781961 SC dismissed the petition under Section 11(6) read with Section 11(12)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that the disputes arise from a principal agreement providing for arbitration seated in Benin, making it an international commercial arbitration governed by Part II, not Part I. Consequently, recourse to Section 11 was held legally untenable. SC accepted the Delhi HC's prior findings under Section 45 as creating issue estoppel on the questions of operative agreement, seat of arbitration, and scope of arbitration clauses. SC further held that the group of companies doctrine was inapplicable, as no compelling intention to bind non-signatories to the arbitration agreement was shown. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 21 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781961