<?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>1983 (7) TMI 223 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100270</link>
    <description>Article notes that applications under section 20 of the Arbitration Act are governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, so claims arising from defaults within three years of the application remain within time, while earlier portions may be left to the arbitrator after reference. It also explains that a director&#039;s fiduciary duty requires acting in the company&#039;s interest, and mere disclosure of interest does not validate a one-sided distributorship agreement that secures personal advantage and harms the company. On that reasoning, such an agreement is voidable at the company&#039;s instance, and an arbitration clause embedded in it does not survive avoidance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jul 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:43:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137321" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (7) TMI 223 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100270</link>
      <description>Article notes that applications under section 20 of the Arbitration Act are governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, so claims arising from defaults within three years of the application remain within time, while earlier portions may be left to the arbitrator after reference. It also explains that a director&#039;s fiduciary duty requires acting in the company&#039;s interest, and mere disclosure of interest does not validate a one-sided distributorship agreement that secures personal advantage and harms the company. On that reasoning, such an agreement is voidable at the company&#039;s instance, and an arbitration clause embedded in it does not survive avoidance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jul 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100270</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>