<?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 (9) TMI 728 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237296</link>
    <description>The court upheld the Company Law Board&#039;s decision, ruling that the appellant must pay JLL the balance fee as agreed. It determined that the CLB had jurisdiction over the matter, emphasizing that Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act did not apply to the dispute between the parties. The appeal was dismissed, and all related applications were rejected without costs awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Sep 2013 21:00:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=199703" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (9) TMI 728 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237296</link>
      <description>The court upheld the Company Law Board&#039;s decision, ruling that the appellant must pay JLL the balance fee as agreed. It determined that the CLB had jurisdiction over the matter, emphasizing that Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act did not apply to the dispute between the parties. The appeal was dismissed, and all related applications were rejected without costs awarded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237296</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>