<?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>1973 (4) TMI 117 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196985</link>
    <description>A party seeking stay under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 must apply before filing the written statement or otherwise taking a step in the proceedings. A step in the proceedings is an act in aid of the suit&#039;s progress showing submission to the court&#039;s jurisdiction on the merits. Where duly authorised Government counsel, after service of summons, asked for time to file the written statement and obtained the adjournment, that request was treated as a conscious step in the suit. The plea that counsel acted without instructions was rejected, and the stay application was therefore incompetent; the High Court&#039;s interference with the stay order was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2020 09:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=500642" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1973 (4) TMI 117 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196985</link>
      <description>A party seeking stay under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 must apply before filing the written statement or otherwise taking a step in the proceedings. A step in the proceedings is an act in aid of the suit&#039;s progress showing submission to the court&#039;s jurisdiction on the merits. Where duly authorised Government counsel, after service of summons, asked for time to file the written statement and obtained the adjournment, that request was treated as a conscious step in the suit. The plea that counsel acted without instructions was rejected, and the stay application was therefore incompetent; the High Court&#039;s interference with the stay order was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196985</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>