<?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 (7) TMI 727 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108739</link>
    <description>An arbitration application under sections 8 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 requires an arbitration agreement between the parties. Here, the record showed that the original works contract remained with GEL, while the applicant acted under a working arrangement and received payments on behalf of GEL. The correspondence, agreement, power of attorney, and payment certificate indicated authority to act for GEL, but not an assignment of contractual rights or acceptance of the applicant as a sub-contractor under the contract. In the absence of a concluded transfer of rights or any arbitration agreement with the respondent, privity of contract and the arbitral nexus were not established, and the application was held not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2025 12:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145756" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (7) TMI 727 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108739</link>
      <description>An arbitration application under sections 8 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 requires an arbitration agreement between the parties. Here, the record showed that the original works contract remained with GEL, while the applicant acted under a working arrangement and received payments on behalf of GEL. The correspondence, agreement, power of attorney, and payment certificate indicated authority to act for GEL, but not an assignment of contractual rights or acceptance of the applicant as a sub-contractor under the contract. In the absence of a concluded transfer of rights or any arbitration agreement with the respondent, privity of contract and the arbitral nexus were not established, and the application was held not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108739</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>