<?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>1968 (9) TMI 120 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199711</link>
    <description>A dispute over excess timber, return of timber, and compensation for deterioration fell within the arbitration clause because its resolution required construction and application of the contract binding the parties. The governing test was whether the claim could be determined without recourse to the contract; where the controversy concerned performance, breach, return of goods, or liability flowing from the contractual arrangement, it was treated as arising under or in connection with the contract. As the inspection, rejection, and related contractual terms were integral to the claim, the arbitrators had jurisdiction and the challenge to arbitrability failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Sep 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2018 15:19:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=512034" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (9) TMI 120 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199711</link>
      <description>A dispute over excess timber, return of timber, and compensation for deterioration fell within the arbitration clause because its resolution required construction and application of the contract binding the parties. The governing test was whether the claim could be determined without recourse to the contract; where the controversy concerned performance, breach, return of goods, or liability flowing from the contractual arrangement, it was treated as arising under or in connection with the contract. As the inspection, rejection, and related contractual terms were integral to the claim, the arbitrators had jurisdiction and the challenge to arbitrability failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Sep 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199711</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>