<?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>2013 (5) TMI 401 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233816</link>
    <description>In a Section 11(6) arbitration petition, appointment can be refused on limitation grounds only where the claim is plainly and patently dead, with no need for detailed evidence. If limitation depends on disputed facts, such as receipt of arbitration notices or whether they were sent to the correct office, the issue should be left to the arbitral tribunal. The court therefore declined to treat the claim as time-barred at the appointment stage and allowed arbitration to proceed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 09:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=196230" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (5) TMI 401 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233816</link>
      <description>In a Section 11(6) arbitration petition, appointment can be refused on limitation grounds only where the claim is plainly and patently dead, with no need for detailed evidence. If limitation depends on disputed facts, such as receipt of arbitration notices or whether they were sent to the correct office, the issue should be left to the arbitral tribunal. The court therefore declined to treat the claim as time-barred at the appointment stage and allowed arbitration to proceed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233816</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>