<?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 (1) TMI 1248 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108924</link>
    <description>An arbitration clause supported appointment of an arbitrator where disputes had arisen and both sides accepted recourse to arbitral adjudication; the arbitrator was appointed in terms of the agreement. Section 9 interim relief, however, lies only before a &quot;Court&quot; within section 2(1)(e), and a High Court qualifies for that purpose only when it exercises ordinary original civil jurisdiction. As the Andhra Pradesh High Court did not have such jurisdiction under the applicable framework, it could not entertain the interim-measures application and the request for protection was rejected for want of jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2012 17:48:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145941" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (1) TMI 1248 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108924</link>
      <description>An arbitration clause supported appointment of an arbitrator where disputes had arisen and both sides accepted recourse to arbitral adjudication; the arbitrator was appointed in terms of the agreement. Section 9 interim relief, however, lies only before a &quot;Court&quot; within section 2(1)(e), and a High Court qualifies for that purpose only when it exercises ordinary original civil jurisdiction. As the Andhra Pradesh High Court did not have such jurisdiction under the applicable framework, it could not entertain the interim-measures application and the request for protection was rejected for want of jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108924</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>