<?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>2003 (5) TMI 414 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109579</link>
    <description>An arbitration clause does not by itself oust a civil court&#039;s jurisdiction to entertain a suit or grant interim protection. Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 preserves the court&#039;s power to order interim measures, including injunctions and appointment of a receiver, before or during arbitral proceedings. A party seeking reference to arbitration must proceed under Section 8(1); the mere pendency of a Section 8 application does not render interim orders without jurisdiction. On this basis, the civil court was held competent to entertain the suit and pass interim orders, and the challenge based solely on the arbitration clause failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:13:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146596" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (5) TMI 414 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109579</link>
      <description>An arbitration clause does not by itself oust a civil court&#039;s jurisdiction to entertain a suit or grant interim protection. Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 preserves the court&#039;s power to order interim measures, including injunctions and appointment of a receiver, before or during arbitral proceedings. A party seeking reference to arbitration must proceed under Section 8(1); the mere pendency of a Section 8 application does not render interim orders without jurisdiction. On this basis, the civil court was held competent to entertain the suit and pass interim orders, and the challenge based solely on the arbitration clause failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109579</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>