<?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>2001 (7) TMI 1311 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279232</link>
    <description>An application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 must be filed before the party submits its first statement on the substance of the dispute. The Madras High Court noted that a first statement is not confined to a written statement and may be found in any pleading or defence that clearly addresses the merits. On the facts, the counter filed in the injunction proceedings contained a substantive defence to the suit claim, so the party had already submitted to the civil court&#039;s jurisdiction before seeking arbitration. The Section 8 application was therefore not maintainable, and refusal to refer the suit to arbitration was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Mar 2019 13:25:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=562023" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (7) TMI 1311 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279232</link>
      <description>An application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 must be filed before the party submits its first statement on the substance of the dispute. The Madras High Court noted that a first statement is not confined to a written statement and may be found in any pleading or defence that clearly addresses the merits. On the facts, the counter filed in the injunction proceedings contained a substantive defence to the suit claim, so the party had already submitted to the civil court&#039;s jurisdiction before seeking arbitration. The Section 8 application was therefore not maintainable, and refusal to refer the suit to arbitration was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279232</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>