<?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 (12) TMI 381 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110279</link>
    <description>A claim filed within three years of the last relevant account entry was not time-barred, so the limitation objection failed. Transactions executed through the Stock Exchange and reflected in the Exchange trade files were held to attract the arbitration bye-laws, meaning an arbitration agreement existed even without contract notes. On that basis, privity and jurisdiction objections were rejected, and the arbitral award was sustained on both grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2012 12:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147295" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (12) TMI 381 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110279</link>
      <description>A claim filed within three years of the last relevant account entry was not time-barred, so the limitation objection failed. Transactions executed through the Stock Exchange and reflected in the Exchange trade files were held to attract the arbitration bye-laws, meaning an arbitration agreement existed even without contract notes. On that basis, privity and jurisdiction objections were rejected, and the arbitral award was sustained on both grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110279</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>