<?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>2008 (8) TMI 1051 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466322</link>
    <description>A faxed charter party can amount to a concluded contract and a valid arbitration agreement where the correspondence shows final consensus and the document bears the parties&#039; signatures. Applying Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court held that an arbitration agreement need only be in writing and may be evidenced by exchanged fax communications; it does not require the original instrument, signatures on every page, or a seal. Unsupported allegations of forgery were rejected, and the Court stressed that additional formalities cannot be imposed consistently with minimal judicial intervention. The charter party was treated as genuine and validly containing an arbitration clause, so appointment of a sole arbitrator was permitted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2026 12:14:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=883524" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 1051 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466322</link>
      <description>A faxed charter party can amount to a concluded contract and a valid arbitration agreement where the correspondence shows final consensus and the document bears the parties&#039; signatures. Applying Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court held that an arbitration agreement need only be in writing and may be evidenced by exchanged fax communications; it does not require the original instrument, signatures on every page, or a seal. Unsupported allegations of forgery were rejected, and the Court stressed that additional formalities cannot be imposed consistently with minimal judicial intervention. The charter party was treated as genuine and validly containing an arbitration clause, so appointment of a sole arbitrator was permitted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466322</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>