<?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>2001 (8) TMI 1303 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106785</link>
    <description>A written arbitration agreement for New York Convention enforcement may be established from signed contracts and contemporaneous correspondence, including conduct referable to those contracts. Prior judicial determination of the agreement&#039;s existence barred re-agitation of that issue in enforcement proceedings. Public policy under foreign award enforcement was applied narrowly, limited to fundamental policy of Indian law, the interests of India, and justice or morality; a plausible arbitral view on RBI import restrictions and force majeure was not open to merits review. Interest awards were not interfered with absent exceptional circumstances, and exchange-rate fluctuation alone was insufficient.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2018 17:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143805" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (8) TMI 1303 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106785</link>
      <description>A written arbitration agreement for New York Convention enforcement may be established from signed contracts and contemporaneous correspondence, including conduct referable to those contracts. Prior judicial determination of the agreement&#039;s existence barred re-agitation of that issue in enforcement proceedings. Public policy under foreign award enforcement was applied narrowly, limited to fundamental policy of Indian law, the interests of India, and justice or morality; a plausible arbitral view on RBI import restrictions and force majeure was not open to merits review. Interest awards were not interfered with absent exceptional circumstances, and exchange-rate fluctuation alone was insufficient.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106785</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>