<?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 (6) TMI 785 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107986</link>
    <description>For interim measures under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, &quot;Court&quot; means the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the district, read with the CPC and the General Clauses Act, so a subordinate civil court lacks jurisdiction to grant such relief. The Andhra Pradesh High Court therefore treated the First Additional Junior Civil Judge as an improper forum for section 9 protection and held that interim relief must be sought before the Principal District Court. The custody direction allowing retention of vehicles was set aside for want of jurisdiction, while the referral to arbitration was maintained and the party was left free to seek interim protection from the competent court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:16:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145003" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (6) TMI 785 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107986</link>
      <description>For interim measures under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, &quot;Court&quot; means the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the district, read with the CPC and the General Clauses Act, so a subordinate civil court lacks jurisdiction to grant such relief. The Andhra Pradesh High Court therefore treated the First Additional Junior Civil Judge as an improper forum for section 9 protection and held that interim relief must be sought before the Principal District Court. The custody direction allowing retention of vehicles was set aside for want of jurisdiction, while the referral to arbitration was maintained and the party was left free to seek interim protection from the competent court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107986</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>