<?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 (7) TMI 742 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109705</link>
    <description>Interim protection may be granted in aid of arbitration where a prima facie case shows possible non-delivery of shares and the claimant needs preservation of its position pending invocation of arbitral proceedings. The Court also held that, for disputes involving a notified person under the Special Courts Act, the special statutory scheme prevails over the general jurisdiction under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 9B of the Special Courts Act was treated as conferring exclusive special-court powers, and the general arbitration jurisdiction clause did not displace that exclusivity. Relief was therefore confined to the first respondent, and the petition against the notified respondent was not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:54:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146722" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (7) TMI 742 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109705</link>
      <description>Interim protection may be granted in aid of arbitration where a prima facie case shows possible non-delivery of shares and the claimant needs preservation of its position pending invocation of arbitral proceedings. The Court also held that, for disputes involving a notified person under the Special Courts Act, the special statutory scheme prevails over the general jurisdiction under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 9B of the Special Courts Act was treated as conferring exclusive special-court powers, and the general arbitration jurisdiction clause did not displace that exclusivity. Relief was therefore confined to the first respondent, and the petition against the notified respondent was not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109705</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>