<?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>2012 (10) TMI 651 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217713</link>
    <description>A wide arbitration clause covering disputes arising out of, in relation to, or in connection with a joint venture agreement was held to extend to later instruments executed in furtherance of that transaction. The court treated the joint venture agreement, debenture subscription arrangement, and deed of adherence as a composite commercial structure, so the valuation and conversion disputes over CCDs were prima facie within the arbitration agreement. It also noted that the foreign-seated arbitration framework and the tribunal&#039;s competence to rule on jurisdiction militated against interim civil court interference. Injunctive relief restraining the SIAC arbitration was therefore refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=191088" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (10) TMI 651 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217713</link>
      <description>A wide arbitration clause covering disputes arising out of, in relation to, or in connection with a joint venture agreement was held to extend to later instruments executed in furtherance of that transaction. The court treated the joint venture agreement, debenture subscription arrangement, and deed of adherence as a composite commercial structure, so the valuation and conversion disputes over CCDs were prima facie within the arbitration agreement. It also noted that the foreign-seated arbitration framework and the tribunal&#039;s competence to rule on jurisdiction militated against interim civil court interference. Injunctive relief restraining the SIAC arbitration was therefore refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217713</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>