<?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>1999 (11) TMI 807 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105030</link>
    <description>Interim protection under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was refused in a dispute over repair, rectification and performance of a plant. The Court noted that contested issues such as denial of an opportunity to rectify defects and whether conversion from tubular to plate type was required were matters for the arbitral tribunal. It held that the petitioner had to show a prima facie case for interim relief, but the contract contemplated rectification by another agency if the petitioner did not act within a reasonable time. The Court also observed that the contract was not specifically enforceable and that any loss could be compensated in damages, so injunctive relief was not warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2012 12:12:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142069" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (11) TMI 807 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105030</link>
      <description>Interim protection under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was refused in a dispute over repair, rectification and performance of a plant. The Court noted that contested issues such as denial of an opportunity to rectify defects and whether conversion from tubular to plate type was required were matters for the arbitral tribunal. It held that the petitioner had to show a prima facie case for interim relief, but the contract contemplated rectification by another agency if the petitioner did not act within a reasonable time. The Court also observed that the contract was not specifically enforceable and that any loss could be compensated in damages, so injunctive relief was not warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105030</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>