<?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>2007 (4) TMI 739 - MUMBAI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198274</link>
    <description>Parties may enlarge the scope of arbitration through their pleadings and conduct, and a jurisdictional objection not raised in time is treated as waived. On that basis, the second-shipment dispute was held to fall within the arbitral tribunal&#039;s competence because it had been litigated through claims, defences and amendments without timely protest. The tribunal&#039;s findings on the agreed pumping rate and loading shortage were also upheld, as the memorandum of understanding, later confirmation letter and contemporaneous contractual evidence supported the conclusions and no perversity or legal error was shown. The challenge to the award therefore failed, and the dismissal of the section 34 petition was affirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Jan 2018 12:23:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=506272" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (4) TMI 739 - MUMBAI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198274</link>
      <description>Parties may enlarge the scope of arbitration through their pleadings and conduct, and a jurisdictional objection not raised in time is treated as waived. On that basis, the second-shipment dispute was held to fall within the arbitral tribunal&#039;s competence because it had been litigated through claims, defences and amendments without timely protest. The tribunal&#039;s findings on the agreed pumping rate and loading shortage were also upheld, as the memorandum of understanding, later confirmation letter and contemporaneous contractual evidence supported the conclusions and no perversity or legal error was shown. The challenge to the award therefore failed, and the dismissal of the section 34 petition was affirmed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198274</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>