https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194797 The Delhi High Court held that the respondents had not shown grounds to recall or review the interim order directing deposit of the sale proceeds. Their objection that the amount had not been received earlier was rejected because they were present when the order was passed and had not promptly raised that point, while the arbitration record showed the dispute had proceeded on the basis that the proceeds were received and were to be held in agreed proportions. The Court further held that Section 4 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 did not assist the respondents, rejected the plea of per incuriam, and confirmed that it had jurisdiction under Section 9 and its incidental powers to issue the direction. en-us Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Sep 2017 16:14:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194797 The Delhi High Court held that the respondents had not shown grounds to recall or review the interim order directing deposit of the sale proceeds. Their objection that the amount had not been received earlier was rejected because they were present when the order was passed and had not promptly raised that point, while the arbitration record showed the dispute had proceeded on the basis that the proceeds were received and were to be held in agreed proportions. The Court further held that Section 4 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 did not assist the respondents, rejected the plea of per incuriam, and confirmed that it had jurisdiction under Section 9 and its incidental powers to issue the direction. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194797