<?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>1959 (12) TMI 62 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281336</link>
    <description>An absolute jute contract was not converted into a conditional bargain by implication or an unproved oral understanding that performance depended on export licence or quota. The licensing regime did not render the contracts illegal or void, as the sellers had not shown due diligence or exhaustion of available means of performance, and the resulting awards were not contrary to public policy on that basis. In relation to a foreign award under the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937, the statute did not expressly bar a civil suit to challenge it, so such a suit was maintainable in principle; however, objections based on jurisdiction, omitted issues, and alleged misconduct failed on the facts, and the challenge did not succeed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Dec 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Jun 2019 10:28:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=575217" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1959 (12) TMI 62 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281336</link>
      <description>An absolute jute contract was not converted into a conditional bargain by implication or an unproved oral understanding that performance depended on export licence or quota. The licensing regime did not render the contracts illegal or void, as the sellers had not shown due diligence or exhaustion of available means of performance, and the resulting awards were not contrary to public policy on that basis. In relation to a foreign award under the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937, the statute did not expressly bar a civil suit to challenge it, so such a suit was maintainable in principle; however, objections based on jurisdiction, omitted issues, and alleged misconduct failed on the facts, and the challenge did not succeed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Dec 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281336</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>