<?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>1988 (4) TMI 319 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101563</link>
    <description>Section 34 of the Arbitration Act did not bar a company-court winding-up proceeding concerning an unregistered company. The proceeding was treated as a special company matter, not an ordinary civil suit between parties, and it culminated in an order in rem rather than an order in personam. On that basis, the arbitration clause could not be used to stay the winding-up petition, and the stay application was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:14:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138612" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (4) TMI 319 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101563</link>
      <description>Section 34 of the Arbitration Act did not bar a company-court winding-up proceeding concerning an unregistered company. The proceeding was treated as a special company matter, not an ordinary civil suit between parties, and it culminated in an order in rem rather than an order in personam. On that basis, the arbitration clause could not be used to stay the winding-up petition, and the stay application was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101563</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>