<?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>2001 (10) TMI 1187 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282581</link>
    <description>For enforcement of a foreign award in the High Court&#039;s Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, Clause 12 of the Letters Patent continues to apply unless expressly excluded, so leave must be sought before filing the substantive petition; leave filed after the petition was held not maintainable. The Court also distinguished the &quot;subject matter of the award&quot; from the subject matter of the arbitration, holding that the former means the relief finally granted by the award. As the respondents had no office, business, or pleaded assets within jurisdiction, the Court found no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the enforcement petition and held it not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Aug 2019 15:08:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=583525" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (10) TMI 1187 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282581</link>
      <description>For enforcement of a foreign award in the High Court&#039;s Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, Clause 12 of the Letters Patent continues to apply unless expressly excluded, so leave must be sought before filing the substantive petition; leave filed after the petition was held not maintainable. The Court also distinguished the &quot;subject matter of the award&quot; from the subject matter of the arbitration, holding that the former means the relief finally granted by the award. As the respondents had no office, business, or pleaded assets within jurisdiction, the Court found no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the enforcement petition and held it not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282581</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>