<?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>2004 (8) TMI 734 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199385</link>
    <description>Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 requires reference to foreign arbitration unless the arbitration agreement is shown to be null, void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. Alleged defects in the rig did not strike at the root of the charter party or the arbitration clause, especially where the contract had been performed for a substantial period and latent defects were addressed by the contractual repair mechanism. Continued use of the rig indicated acquiescence rather than repudiation, so the agreement remained valid and operative. Interim injunction was also denied because no prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable injury was shown to justify restraining the arbitration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Feb 2018 15:49:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=510723" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (8) TMI 734 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199385</link>
      <description>Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 requires reference to foreign arbitration unless the arbitration agreement is shown to be null, void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. Alleged defects in the rig did not strike at the root of the charter party or the arbitration clause, especially where the contract had been performed for a substantial period and latent defects were addressed by the contractual repair mechanism. Continued use of the rig indicated acquiescence rather than repudiation, so the agreement remained valid and operative. Interim injunction was also denied because no prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable injury was shown to justify restraining the arbitration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199385</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>