<?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>2008 (10) TMI 629 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171255</link>
    <description>A valid arbitration clause in a joint venture agreement continued to govern disputes arising out of or in relation to that agreement, even though termination of the underlying commercial arrangement was alleged. Claims for refund or adjustment of amounts paid through affiliates, including security deposit, equity contribution and working expenses, were treated as matters capable of arbitration because they stemmed from the agreement. The objection that the reference involved bifurcated parties or causes of action was rejected where the disputes referred were confined to the joint venture arrangement itself. The arbitrator could examine dues, liabilities and functional issues connected with the venture, though not order winding up.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2016 14:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=390330" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (10) TMI 629 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171255</link>
      <description>A valid arbitration clause in a joint venture agreement continued to govern disputes arising out of or in relation to that agreement, even though termination of the underlying commercial arrangement was alleged. Claims for refund or adjustment of amounts paid through affiliates, including security deposit, equity contribution and working expenses, were treated as matters capable of arbitration because they stemmed from the agreement. The objection that the reference involved bifurcated parties or causes of action was rejected where the disputes referred were confined to the joint venture arrangement itself. The arbitrator could examine dues, liabilities and functional issues connected with the venture, though not order winding up.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171255</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>