<?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 (2) TMI 362 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109365</link>
    <description>A partnership arbitration clause remained enforceable despite the death of the named arbitrator, because the agreement covered disputes arising from the partnership and the vacancy could be filled under the applicable appointment mechanism. Interim protection was also justified where long-standing conduct showed that the appellant alone operated the firm&#039;s bank account with the partners&#039; consent, effectively varying the original arrangement. Unilateral interference that would stop wages, taxes, utilities and other business obligations was found inconsistent with partners&#039; duties of good faith and common advantage, so restraint was warranted to preserve the business pending arbitration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Apr 2012 12:53:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146382" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (2) TMI 362 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109365</link>
      <description>A partnership arbitration clause remained enforceable despite the death of the named arbitrator, because the agreement covered disputes arising from the partnership and the vacancy could be filled under the applicable appointment mechanism. Interim protection was also justified where long-standing conduct showed that the appellant alone operated the firm&#039;s bank account with the partners&#039; consent, effectively varying the original arrangement. Unilateral interference that would stop wages, taxes, utilities and other business obligations was found inconsistent with partners&#039; duties of good faith and common advantage, so restraint was warranted to preserve the business pending arbitration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109365</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>