<?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>2022 (9) TMI 672 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427727</link>
    <description>Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act permits wide interim protection, including securing the claim by deposit or bank guarantee, and the Court need not apply Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the CPC in a rigid manner. The relevant considerations remain a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience, and the need to prevent frustration of the arbitral process. On the facts, the refundable security deposits had been paid, and the Court found no reason to treat the interim protection ordered by the High Court as unjustified despite arguments based on internal arrangements, lack of free assets, or encumbrances. The securing direction was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2022 08:12:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=690852" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (9) TMI 672 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427727</link>
      <description>Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act permits wide interim protection, including securing the claim by deposit or bank guarantee, and the Court need not apply Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the CPC in a rigid manner. The relevant considerations remain a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience, and the need to prevent frustration of the arbitral process. On the facts, the refundable security deposits had been paid, and the Court found no reason to treat the interim protection ordered by the High Court as unjustified despite arguments based on internal arrangements, lack of free assets, or encumbrances. The securing direction was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427727</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>