<?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>2024 (8) TMI 157 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756453</link>
    <description>Supervisory interference was declined where the interim order staying the arbitral award and granting temporary injunction had been passed after hearing both sides and considering the objections. The court found no procedural infirmity or jurisdictional error, noting that the order was only intended to preserve the existing position until the regular court decided the matter. The writ petition therefore failed, and the interim arrangement remained undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Aug 2024 08:09:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=762749" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (8) TMI 157 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756453</link>
      <description>Supervisory interference was declined where the interim order staying the arbitral award and granting temporary injunction had been passed after hearing both sides and considering the objections. The court found no procedural infirmity or jurisdictional error, noting that the order was only intended to preserve the existing position until the regular court decided the matter. The writ petition therefore failed, and the interim arrangement remained undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756453</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>