<?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>1996 (6) TMI 351 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199191</link>
    <description>A winding up petition under the Companies Act, 1956 is a statutory proceeding concerning a company&#039;s inability to pay debts, and is distinct from contractual adjudication of disputes under an arbitration clause. On that basis, Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 could not be used to stay the winding up proceedings merely because the underlying contract contained an arbitration agreement. Stay also required a subsisting arbitration agreement, a real dispute within its scope, readiness and willingness to arbitrate, and an application made before taking other steps in the proceeding; those conditions were not met because liability was acknowledged, part payment had been made, and no concrete arbitral dispute was shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Feb 2018 13:25:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=510028" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (6) TMI 351 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199191</link>
      <description>A winding up petition under the Companies Act, 1956 is a statutory proceeding concerning a company&#039;s inability to pay debts, and is distinct from contractual adjudication of disputes under an arbitration clause. On that basis, Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 could not be used to stay the winding up proceedings merely because the underlying contract contained an arbitration agreement. Stay also required a subsisting arbitration agreement, a real dispute within its scope, readiness and willingness to arbitrate, and an application made before taking other steps in the proceeding; those conditions were not met because liability was acknowledged, part payment had been made, and no concrete arbitral dispute was shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199191</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>