<?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>2000 (3) TMI 1100 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199398</link>
    <description>Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be invoked for interim protection in support of an arbitration seated outside India, because Part I is not confined to domestic arbitrations in a narrow sense. Reading Sections 2, 9, 11 and 42 together, the Delhi High Court held that Indian court intervention is not excluded merely because the arbitration is foreign-seated. Where territorial jurisdiction exists and the respondent has presence or assets in India, interim relief may be granted if that remedy is efficacious and the statute does not expressly bar it. The objection to maintainability was therefore rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Feb 2018 17:53:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=510743" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (3) TMI 1100 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199398</link>
      <description>Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be invoked for interim protection in support of an arbitration seated outside India, because Part I is not confined to domestic arbitrations in a narrow sense. Reading Sections 2, 9, 11 and 42 together, the Delhi High Court held that Indian court intervention is not excluded merely because the arbitration is foreign-seated. Where territorial jurisdiction exists and the respondent has presence or assets in India, interim relief may be granted if that remedy is efficacious and the statute does not expressly bar it. The objection to maintainability was therefore rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199398</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>