<?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>2018 (3) TMI 2002 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308246</link>
    <description>Interim protection under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 may extend to restraining transfer or dissipation of assets where the claimant shows a prima facie enforceable claim, admitted liability, repeated promises to pay, dishonoured cheques, and a real apprehension that assets may be moved to defeat recovery. The principles of attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC can be applied in arbitration for such protection. An unsecured creditor is not, by itself, barred from interim relief, and the restraint does not convert the claimant into a secured creditor or prejudice secured lenders. The restraint order was upheld and no interference was warranted under Section 37.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Jun 2023 21:06:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=716097" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (3) TMI 2002 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308246</link>
      <description>Interim protection under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 may extend to restraining transfer or dissipation of assets where the claimant shows a prima facie enforceable claim, admitted liability, repeated promises to pay, dishonoured cheques, and a real apprehension that assets may be moved to defeat recovery. The principles of attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC can be applied in arbitration for such protection. An unsecured creditor is not, by itself, barred from interim relief, and the restraint does not convert the claimant into a secured creditor or prejudice secured lenders. The restraint order was upheld and no interference was warranted under Section 37.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308246</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>