<?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>2004 (3) TMI 415 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109038</link>
    <description>Interim relief under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is available only from a competent court under the civil court hierarchy applicable at the time of filing; an application filed before a forum lacking jurisdiction is invalid. The text also states that security or interim protection is discretionary and requires a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and a credible showing of irreparable injury or risk that the eventual award will be rendered ineffective. On the stated facts, the applicant did not produce adequate evidence to justify exceptional protection, so the jurisdictional defect and absence of sufficient material both defeated the request.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2012 15:44:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146055" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (3) TMI 415 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109038</link>
      <description>Interim relief under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is available only from a competent court under the civil court hierarchy applicable at the time of filing; an application filed before a forum lacking jurisdiction is invalid. The text also states that security or interim protection is discretionary and requires a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and a credible showing of irreparable injury or risk that the eventual award will be rendered ineffective. On the stated facts, the applicant did not produce adequate evidence to justify exceptional protection, so the jurisdictional defect and absence of sufficient material both defeated the request.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109038</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>