<?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>2009 (1) TMI 917 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198828</link>
    <description>The court allowed the application under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, referring the parties to arbitration. An interim injunction was extended for 60 days to allow the plaintiff to take necessary steps. The court clarified that it had not decided on the merits of the interim order or the case between the parties, with any observations not binding on future legal proceedings. The application and suit were disposed of without costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Feb 2018 18:57:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=508349" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (1) TMI 917 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198828</link>
      <description>The court allowed the application under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, referring the parties to arbitration. An interim injunction was extended for 60 days to allow the plaintiff to take necessary steps. The court clarified that it had not decided on the merits of the interim order or the case between the parties, with any observations not binding on future legal proceedings. The application and suit were disposed of without costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198828</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>