<?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>2011 (6) TMI 926 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193817</link>
    <description>Territorial jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was supported by execution of the share subscription and shareholders agreement and personal guarantees in Kolkata, purchase of stamp papers there, related correspondence, and the company&#039;s business presence within the court&#039;s limits; the application was therefore entertainable. Interim protection was also justified because the agreement and financing structure indicated that the investor&#039;s security arrangement was intended to continue, while there was a real apprehension that rights issue proceeds could be used to prematurely discharge the principal secured liability. On balance of convenience, restraint was appropriate to preserve the contractual position pending arbitration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Aug 2017 16:58:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=485976" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (6) TMI 926 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193817</link>
      <description>Territorial jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was supported by execution of the share subscription and shareholders agreement and personal guarantees in Kolkata, purchase of stamp papers there, related correspondence, and the company&#039;s business presence within the court&#039;s limits; the application was therefore entertainable. Interim protection was also justified because the agreement and financing structure indicated that the investor&#039;s security arrangement was intended to continue, while there was a real apprehension that rights issue proceeds could be used to prematurely discharge the principal secured liability. On balance of convenience, restraint was appropriate to preserve the contractual position pending arbitration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193817</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>