<?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>1966 (2) TMI 95 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281413</link>
    <description>The court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court&#039;s order, and dismissed the suit. It held that the arbitration clause was vague and uncertain, rendering it unenforceable. As there was no valid arbitration agreement, the suit under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act was not maintainable. Each party was directed to bear their own costs for the appeal and proceedings in the lower court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Feb 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2019 17:40:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=575626" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (2) TMI 95 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281413</link>
      <description>The court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court&#039;s order, and dismissed the suit. It held that the arbitration clause was vague and uncertain, rendering it unenforceable. As there was no valid arbitration agreement, the suit under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act was not maintainable. Each party was directed to bear their own costs for the appeal and proceedings in the lower court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Feb 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281413</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>