<?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>2017 (7) TMI 1078 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196586</link>
    <description>Section 9 interim relief under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 must be exercised on settled injunction principles, including a prima facie case, balance of convenience and avoidance of disproportionate harm. The text explains that where respondents showed strong prima facie entitlement and there was support for securing the claim, interim protection was justified. It also notes that securing the entire amount by cash deposit could disrupt commercial operations, so the court may calibrate security to reduce business prejudice while preserving protection of the claim. The stated approach is to grant the form of security that best protects the subject matter of arbitration with the least risk of injustice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Dec 2017 21:40:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=498995" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 1078 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196586</link>
      <description>Section 9 interim relief under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 must be exercised on settled injunction principles, including a prima facie case, balance of convenience and avoidance of disproportionate harm. The text explains that where respondents showed strong prima facie entitlement and there was support for securing the claim, interim protection was justified. It also notes that securing the entire amount by cash deposit could disrupt commercial operations, so the court may calibrate security to reduce business prejudice while preserving protection of the claim. The stated approach is to grant the form of security that best protects the subject matter of arbitration with the least risk of injustice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196586</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>