<?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>2014 (6) TMI 155 - Punjab and Haryana High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248251</link>
    <description>Proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are summary in nature and are not to be treated as a full civil trial. The Court is not bound to frame issues under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC, though it may identify questions for determination. Parties may file affidavits and, where necessary, cross-examine witnesses, but the entire civil procedure is not automatically imported into Section 34 proceedings. The text further states that the jurisdiction is akin to appellate review and is intended to support expeditious dispute resolution with minimal court intervention; the impugned order recalling the earlier direction to lead evidence was held valid and the revision petition was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2014 11:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=357022" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (6) TMI 155 - Punjab and Haryana High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248251</link>
      <description>Proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are summary in nature and are not to be treated as a full civil trial. The Court is not bound to frame issues under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC, though it may identify questions for determination. Parties may file affidavits and, where necessary, cross-examine witnesses, but the entire civil procedure is not automatically imported into Section 34 proceedings. The text further states that the jurisdiction is akin to appellate review and is intended to support expeditious dispute resolution with minimal court intervention; the impugned order recalling the earlier direction to lead evidence was held valid and the revision petition was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248251</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>