<?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>Section 11(4) arbitration referral set aside for lack of prima facie agreement with non-signatory appellant</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94934</link>
    <description>SC allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order referring the appellant to arbitration under Section 11(4). Applying the principles in Cox and Kings, SC held that the referral court&#039;s role is confined to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement and whether a non-signatory is a veritable party. On the facts, the appellant and respondent operated on &quot;separate orbits&quot; and no intention to bind the appellant to the contract between the other two entities was established, even prima facie. The respondent thus failed the prima facie test, and the dispute cannot be referred to arbitration against the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2025 08:54:58 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2025 08:54:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=870702" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Section 11(4) arbitration referral set aside for lack of prima facie agreement with non-signatory appellant</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94934</link>
      <description>SC allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order referring the appellant to arbitration under Section 11(4). Applying the principles in Cox and Kings, SC held that the referral court&#039;s role is confined to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement and whether a non-signatory is a veritable party. On the facts, the appellant and respondent operated on &quot;separate orbits&quot; and no intention to bind the appellant to the contract between the other two entities was established, even prima facie. The respondent thus failed the prima facie test, and the dispute cannot be referred to arbitration against the appellant.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2025 08:54:58 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94934</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>