<?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>2018 (7) TMI 1910 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279741</link>
    <description>The court upheld the Council&#039;s jurisdiction under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, ruling that the respondent qualified as a supplier despite registration post transactions. It found no breach of natural justice principles in the arbitration referral process, dismissing the petition and directing each party to bear their costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2019 06:34:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=565466" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 1910 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279741</link>
      <description>The court upheld the Council&#039;s jurisdiction under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, ruling that the respondent qualified as a supplier despite registration post transactions. It found no breach of natural justice principles in the arbitration referral process, dismissing the petition and directing each party to bear their costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279741</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>