<?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>2002 (11) TMI 688 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108610</link>
    <description>Section 9 CPC preserves civil jurisdiction unless barred, so an arbitration clause does not by itself oust the civil court. Under sections 8 and 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, once the statutory reference mechanism is invoked, the tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction and on the validity of the arbitration agreement. For foreign-seated arbitration governed by English law, section 45 requires reference to arbitration unless the agreement is shown to be null, void, inoperative, or incapable of performance. Applying separability, the Court declined to restrain the parties from pursuing their chosen arbitral forum and refused anti-arbitration injunctive relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 30 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2012 19:01:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145627" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (11) TMI 688 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108610</link>
      <description>Section 9 CPC preserves civil jurisdiction unless barred, so an arbitration clause does not by itself oust the civil court. Under sections 8 and 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, once the statutory reference mechanism is invoked, the tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction and on the validity of the arbitration agreement. For foreign-seated arbitration governed by English law, section 45 requires reference to arbitration unless the agreement is shown to be null, void, inoperative, or incapable of performance. Applying separability, the Court declined to restrain the parties from pursuing their chosen arbitral forum and refused anti-arbitration injunctive relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 30 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108610</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>