<?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 (7) TMI 1237 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108911</link>
    <description>Disputes arising from the parties&#039; transactions were found outside the exchange bye-laws arbitration clause because the controversy, as pleaded, went beyond ordinary contractual matters. The court treated the plaintiff&#039;s allegations of account control, false claims, and liability avoidance as disclosing a prima facie case of fraud, and held that such grave and complicated issues were not fit for summary determination by a domestic arbitral tribunal. The reliefs sought, including matters linked to piercing the corporate veil and fixing liability for alleged fraudulent conduct, were also held to lie beyond the proper scope of arbitration on the facts pleaded. Reference to arbitration was refused and the suit was allowed to proceed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2012 15:56:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145928" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (7) TMI 1237 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108911</link>
      <description>Disputes arising from the parties&#039; transactions were found outside the exchange bye-laws arbitration clause because the controversy, as pleaded, went beyond ordinary contractual matters. The court treated the plaintiff&#039;s allegations of account control, false claims, and liability avoidance as disclosing a prima facie case of fraud, and held that such grave and complicated issues were not fit for summary determination by a domestic arbitral tribunal. The reliefs sought, including matters linked to piercing the corporate veil and fixing liability for alleged fraudulent conduct, were also held to lie beyond the proper scope of arbitration on the facts pleaded. Reference to arbitration was refused and the suit was allowed to proceed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108911</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>