<?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>2021 (12) TMI 1356 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302635</link>
    <description>Jurisdictional objections to a reference under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, including whether the Act applied to work contracts and whether five separate contracts could be clubbed into one reference, were left open for the arbitral tribunal to decide. The HC held that the tribunal should determine its own jurisdiction, including the petitioner&#039;s objections, before proceeding to the merits. The writ petition was disposed of on that basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2022 08:14:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=681472" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (12) TMI 1356 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302635</link>
      <description>Jurisdictional objections to a reference under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, including whether the Act applied to work contracts and whether five separate contracts could be clubbed into one reference, were left open for the arbitral tribunal to decide. The HC held that the tribunal should determine its own jurisdiction, including the petitioner&#039;s objections, before proceeding to the merits. The writ petition was disposed of on that basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302635</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>