<?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>2016 (9) TMI 514 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332253</link>
    <description>Section 9 arbitration relief may secure an admitted or substantially undisputed amount where contractual performance has become impossible in law and one party retains substantial consideration, with restitutionary principles supporting interim protection; disputed loss, interest, compensation, and consequential adjustments remain for the arbitral tribunal. A share sale arrangement also raised whether contractual indemnity and hold-harmless language required reasonable steps to address an income-tax offence by compounding or similar action, and the court treated the scope of that obligation as a matter still subject to arbitration rather than finally determined at the interim stage.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Sep 2017 15:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=440965" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 514 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332253</link>
      <description>Section 9 arbitration relief may secure an admitted or substantially undisputed amount where contractual performance has become impossible in law and one party retains substantial consideration, with restitutionary principles supporting interim protection; disputed loss, interest, compensation, and consequential adjustments remain for the arbitral tribunal. A share sale arrangement also raised whether contractual indemnity and hold-harmless language required reasonable steps to address an income-tax offence by compounding or similar action, and the court treated the scope of that obligation as a matter still subject to arbitration rather than finally determined at the interim stage.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332253</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>