<?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>2007 (1) TMI 630 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280672</link>
    <description>A partnership dispute was examined for referral to arbitration under the arbitration clause and Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The clause applied only where the partners mutually agreed to resolve disputes before a sole arbitrator, and the request was made after suit filing and after expulsion and reconstitution of the firm. Because the suit sought declaratory and injunctive reliefs requiring detailed factual inquiry, and the applicant did not file the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy as required by Section 8(2), the controversy was found unsuitable for compulsory arbitration and fit for civil court adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 May 2019 14:25:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=571411" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (1) TMI 630 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280672</link>
      <description>A partnership dispute was examined for referral to arbitration under the arbitration clause and Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The clause applied only where the partners mutually agreed to resolve disputes before a sole arbitrator, and the request was made after suit filing and after expulsion and reconstitution of the firm. Because the suit sought declaratory and injunctive reliefs requiring detailed factual inquiry, and the applicant did not file the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy as required by Section 8(2), the controversy was found unsuitable for compulsory arbitration and fit for civil court adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280672</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>