<?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>1998 (8) TMI 485 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104318</link>
    <description>A claim settled by acceptance of a full and final payment will not remain arbitrable unless the settlement itself is first shown to be invalid on credible evidence. Where accord and satisfaction is alleged, the court must examine whether the settlement was voluntary and binding before any reference to arbitration. A party alleging coercion or undue influence must place reliable material showing free consent was vitiated by unlawful pressure or domination of will. On the stated facts, acceptance of the final bill and related certificate, together with the absence of contemporaneous protest, supported a binding settlement and defeated the later plea of duress.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:38:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141357" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (8) TMI 485 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104318</link>
      <description>A claim settled by acceptance of a full and final payment will not remain arbitrable unless the settlement itself is first shown to be invalid on credible evidence. Where accord and satisfaction is alleged, the court must examine whether the settlement was voluntary and binding before any reference to arbitration. A party alleging coercion or undue influence must place reliable material showing free consent was vitiated by unlawful pressure or domination of will. On the stated facts, acceptance of the final bill and related certificate, together with the absence of contemporaneous protest, supported a binding settlement and defeated the later plea of duress.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104318</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>