<?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>2002 (4) TMI 977 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199157</link>
    <description>An arbitration clause in a lease deed was treated as wide enough to cover disputes arising from the lease, including mesne profits after possession had been delivered. The existence of the arbitration agreement could still be examined for the collateral purpose of referral even if the lease deed was otherwise said to be unstamped or unregistered. Section 8 was not defeated merely because no separate formal application was filed, where the arbitration agreement was brought to the trial court&#039;s notice at the first available opportunity. The approach reflected the policy of minimal judicial intervention and required referral of the covered dispute to the named sole arbitrator.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Feb 2018 15:50:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=509884" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (4) TMI 977 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199157</link>
      <description>An arbitration clause in a lease deed was treated as wide enough to cover disputes arising from the lease, including mesne profits after possession had been delivered. The existence of the arbitration agreement could still be examined for the collateral purpose of referral even if the lease deed was otherwise said to be unstamped or unregistered. Section 8 was not defeated merely because no separate formal application was filed, where the arbitration agreement was brought to the trial court&#039;s notice at the first available opportunity. The approach reflected the policy of minimal judicial intervention and required referral of the covered dispute to the named sole arbitrator.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199157</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>