<?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>2004 (1) TMI 672 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165188</link>
    <description>An arbitration clause survives completion of work, submission of the final bill and execution of a no demand certificate unless there is clear accord and satisfaction or novation. On the facts, the contractor&#039;s immediate protest and reservation of rights meant the final settlement was not unequivocal, and the effect of the certificate, clause 52, and any substituted agreement all required adjudication. Those questions, including whether the dispute was settled without prejudice and whether the contract had been replaced, were held fit for determination by the arbitral tribunal. The challenge failed, and the dispute remained referable to arbitration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Jun 2014 17:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=355984" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (1) TMI 672 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165188</link>
      <description>An arbitration clause survives completion of work, submission of the final bill and execution of a no demand certificate unless there is clear accord and satisfaction or novation. On the facts, the contractor&#039;s immediate protest and reservation of rights meant the final settlement was not unequivocal, and the effect of the certificate, clause 52, and any substituted agreement all required adjudication. Those questions, including whether the dispute was settled without prejudice and whether the contract had been replaced, were held fit for determination by the arbitral tribunal. The challenge failed, and the dispute remained referable to arbitration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165188</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>