<?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>2019 (3) TMI 2022 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307494</link>
    <description>A voluntary full and final discharge voucher ordinarily concludes an insurance claim by accord and satisfaction, and arbitration cannot be invoked on a bare assertion that the settlement was induced by coercion, fraud, or undue influence. The party challenging the discharge must produce prima facie material showing that the settlement was not voluntary and that a live dispute still survives. In the absence of such material, Section 11(6A) does not require appointment of an arbitrator. On the facts, the challenge to the discharge was belated and unsupported, so the settlement was treated as binding and appointment of an arbitrator was unwarranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Apr 2023 21:15:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=710952" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (3) TMI 2022 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307494</link>
      <description>A voluntary full and final discharge voucher ordinarily concludes an insurance claim by accord and satisfaction, and arbitration cannot be invoked on a bare assertion that the settlement was induced by coercion, fraud, or undue influence. The party challenging the discharge must produce prima facie material showing that the settlement was not voluntary and that a live dispute still survives. In the absence of such material, Section 11(6A) does not require appointment of an arbitrator. On the facts, the challenge to the discharge was belated and unsupported, so the settlement was treated as binding and appointment of an arbitrator was unwarranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307494</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>