<?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>1969 (11) TMI 62 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98743</link>
    <description>A winding-up petition alleging inability to pay debts was not a proceeding in respect of a matter agreed to be referred to arbitration, even though the contract contained a wide arbitration clause. Section 34 of the Arbitration Act applies only where the legal proceeding concerns arbitrable contractual disputes; a statutory winding-up issue under the Companies Act is outside that scope. The stay application was therefore not maintainable and was rightly dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Jan 2012 18:28:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135800" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (11) TMI 62 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98743</link>
      <description>A winding-up petition alleging inability to pay debts was not a proceeding in respect of a matter agreed to be referred to arbitration, even though the contract contained a wide arbitration clause. Section 34 of the Arbitration Act applies only where the legal proceeding concerns arbitrable contractual disputes; a statutory winding-up issue under the Companies Act is outside that scope. The stay application was therefore not maintainable and was rightly dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98743</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>