<?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>2008 (2) TMI 942 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280626</link>
    <description>Section 8 reference to arbitration is not forfeited merely because a party files a preliminary objection on maintainability before the Company Law Board; a waiver arises only when the first statement on the substance of the dispute is filed. The provision also operates only where the pending proceedings are fully covered by the arbitration agreement, including identity of parties. Where proceedings under Sections 397 and 398 include persons who are not signatories to the arbitration agreement and substantive relief is sought against them, the disputes are not referable to arbitration under Section 8. The writ petition therefore failed, as no illegality or jurisdictional error was shown in refusing reference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 May 2019 11:16:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=571096" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (2) TMI 942 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280626</link>
      <description>Section 8 reference to arbitration is not forfeited merely because a party files a preliminary objection on maintainability before the Company Law Board; a waiver arises only when the first statement on the substance of the dispute is filed. The provision also operates only where the pending proceedings are fully covered by the arbitration agreement, including identity of parties. Where proceedings under Sections 397 and 398 include persons who are not signatories to the arbitration agreement and substantive relief is sought against them, the disputes are not referable to arbitration under Section 8. The writ petition therefore failed, as no illegality or jurisdictional error was shown in refusing reference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280626</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>