<?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>1993 (11) TMI 229 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165152</link>
    <description>A dispute over alleged full and final settlement of contractual claims remains arbitrable where the contract and arbitration agreement still subsist; questions of accord and satisfaction, repudiation, breach, or discharge are disputes arising out of or in connection with the contract and fall within a wide arbitration clause. Only if the contract has been extinguished altogether or replaced by a new agreement would the arbitration clause cease to operate. The High Court also erred in dismissing the petition in toto, because other objections, including the validity of the sole arbitrator&#039;s appointment and the effect of section 9(b), still required adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Aug 2014 12:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=355570" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (11) TMI 229 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165152</link>
      <description>A dispute over alleged full and final settlement of contractual claims remains arbitrable where the contract and arbitration agreement still subsist; questions of accord and satisfaction, repudiation, breach, or discharge are disputes arising out of or in connection with the contract and fall within a wide arbitration clause. Only if the contract has been extinguished altogether or replaced by a new agreement would the arbitration clause cease to operate. The High Court also erred in dismissing the petition in toto, because other objections, including the validity of the sole arbitrator&#039;s appointment and the effect of section 9(b), still required adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165152</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>