<?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>2005 (12) TMI 592 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281340</link>
    <description>The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking enforcement of a foreign award on the grounds of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction and inadmissibility of a second execution application while the first was pending in the District Court. The court clarified that objections regarding Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act were untenable and ruled against the petitioner based on jurisdictional and procedural grounds. No costs were awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Jun 2019 11:07:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=575222" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (12) TMI 592 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281340</link>
      <description>The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking enforcement of a foreign award on the grounds of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction and inadmissibility of a second execution application while the first was pending in the District Court. The court clarified that objections regarding Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act were untenable and ruled against the petitioner based on jurisdictional and procedural grounds. No costs were awarded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281340</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>