https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99980 Winding-up jurisdiction cannot be used as a substitute for the contractual and statutory method of enforcing an arbitral award where the agreement contemplates filing the award in court and recovering through the ordinary legal process. The court treated the award as binding only so long as it remained unchallenged, but not as authorising bypass of the agreed enforcement route. It also held that a bona fide dispute over liability, supported by counter-claims and related commercial dealings, made the petition an improper attempt at equitable execution through insolvency-style proceedings. The petition was therefore regarded as an abuse of process and not admitted. en-us Sat, 17 Jul 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:54:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99980 Winding-up jurisdiction cannot be used as a substitute for the contractual and statutory method of enforcing an arbitral award where the agreement contemplates filing the award in court and recovering through the ordinary legal process. The court treated the award as binding only so long as it remained unchallenged, but not as authorising bypass of the agreed enforcement route. It also held that a bona fide dispute over liability, supported by counter-claims and related commercial dealings, made the petition an improper attempt at equitable execution through insolvency-style proceedings. The petition was therefore regarded as an abuse of process and not admitted. Case-Laws Companies Law Sat, 17 Jul 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99980