<?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>1920 (3) TMI 2 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279654</link>
    <description>The appeal was allowed, setting aside the lower court&#039;s order and staying the suit. The parties were directed to proceed with arbitration in the Chamber of Commerce with a reconstituted tribunal under Rule VIII. The court highlighted the significance of upholding arbitration agreements and exercised judicial discretion in granting the stay, finding the respondent did not establish grounds for the suit to proceed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 1920 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Mar 2019 17:29:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=564704" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1920 (3) TMI 2 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279654</link>
      <description>The appeal was allowed, setting aside the lower court&#039;s order and staying the suit. The parties were directed to proceed with arbitration in the Chamber of Commerce with a reconstituted tribunal under Rule VIII. The court highlighted the significance of upholding arbitration agreements and exercised judicial discretion in granting the stay, finding the respondent did not establish grounds for the suit to proceed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 1920 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279654</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>