<?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>2010 (10) TMI 931 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153411</link>
    <description>Disputes arising from an alleged licence over premises, where the claim concerns possession and licence fee, are treated as non-arbitrable when section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Small Causes Court. On that basis, the arbitral award covering the second floor licence dispute was held vulnerable in section 34 proceedings. The award also failed insofar as it granted compensation for the first floor and a separate eighteen per cent per annum claim on property value, because possession of the first floor had already been delivered and those claims were unsupported by the pleadings and reasons. Broader jurisdictional objections were rejected because the arbitration clause was wide enough to cover the remaining property disputes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2014 14:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170446" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (10) TMI 931 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153411</link>
      <description>Disputes arising from an alleged licence over premises, where the claim concerns possession and licence fee, are treated as non-arbitrable when section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Small Causes Court. On that basis, the arbitral award covering the second floor licence dispute was held vulnerable in section 34 proceedings. The award also failed insofar as it granted compensation for the first floor and a separate eighteen per cent per annum claim on property value, because possession of the first floor had already been delivered and those claims were unsupported by the pleadings and reasons. Broader jurisdictional objections were rejected because the arbitration clause was wide enough to cover the remaining property disputes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153411</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>