<?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 (11) TMI 1429 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781961</link>
    <description>A foreign-seated international commercial arbitration governed by Benin law excludes Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, so Section 11 cannot be used to appoint an arbitrator in India for the BSA dispute. Later Sales Contracts and HSSAs did not novate or supersede the BSA and its Addendum, as they were separate transaction-specific arrangements and did not show a clear intention to replace the earlier dispute resolution clause. Prior findings in the anti-arbitration injunction suit operated as issue estoppel on the contractual matrix and the primacy of the BSA. The group of companies doctrine also did not justify a composite reference because common affiliation alone does not bind non-signatories without clear mutual intention.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2025 08:57:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=866709" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (11) TMI 1429 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781961</link>
      <description>A foreign-seated international commercial arbitration governed by Benin law excludes Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, so Section 11 cannot be used to appoint an arbitrator in India for the BSA dispute. Later Sales Contracts and HSSAs did not novate or supersede the BSA and its Addendum, as they were separate transaction-specific arrangements and did not show a clear intention to replace the earlier dispute resolution clause. Prior findings in the anti-arbitration injunction suit operated as issue estoppel on the contractual matrix and the primacy of the BSA. The group of companies doctrine also did not justify a composite reference because common affiliation alone does not bind non-signatories without clear mutual intention.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781961</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>