<?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>2007 (3) TMI 673 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161402</link>
    <description>Continuing negotiations, execution and cancellation of a memorandum of understanding, and related proceedings showed that the FSI transfer dispute had not been finally settled, so it remained a live arbitrable issue for the tribunal. At the Section 11 stage, the Court treated the limitation objection as not decisive because the factual record suggested ongoing settlement efforts and no clear final repudiation; the question of limitation could be examined by the arbitral tribunal under Section 16. The arbitrator&#039;s appointment was therefore upheld, as the dispute was still alive and the claim was not shown to be time-barred at that stage.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=343020" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (3) TMI 673 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161402</link>
      <description>Continuing negotiations, execution and cancellation of a memorandum of understanding, and related proceedings showed that the FSI transfer dispute had not been finally settled, so it remained a live arbitrable issue for the tribunal. At the Section 11 stage, the Court treated the limitation objection as not decisive because the factual record suggested ongoing settlement efforts and no clear final repudiation; the question of limitation could be examined by the arbitral tribunal under Section 16. The arbitrator&#039;s appointment was therefore upheld, as the dispute was still alive and the claim was not shown to be time-barred at that stage.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161402</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>