<?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>1985 (2) TMI 301 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199694</link>
    <description>A broad arbitration clause covered a suit for recovery of an unpaid final bill arising from contractual work, and incidental reliefs such as payment certificates did not take the dispute outside the reference. Stay of the suit was justified because the applicants showed readiness and willingness to arbitrate both at the commencement of proceedings and at the stay stage, including by expressing willingness to cooperate and produce records. Allegations of fraud and misappropriation did not bar arbitration where the real controversy concerned completion of work and payment due, and the fraud issues were only incidental. The suit was stayed and the parties were directed to proceed to arbitration under the contract.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2018 14:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=512015" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (2) TMI 301 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199694</link>
      <description>A broad arbitration clause covered a suit for recovery of an unpaid final bill arising from contractual work, and incidental reliefs such as payment certificates did not take the dispute outside the reference. Stay of the suit was justified because the applicants showed readiness and willingness to arbitrate both at the commencement of proceedings and at the stay stage, including by expressing willingness to cooperate and produce records. Allegations of fraud and misappropriation did not bar arbitration where the real controversy concerned completion of work and payment due, and the fraud issues were only incidental. The suit was stayed and the parties were directed to proceed to arbitration under the contract.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199694</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>