<?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>Arbitration Award Stayed: Court Orders Security Deposit and Injunction to Protect Tenant&#039;s Possession Amidst Dispute.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=80073</link>
    <description>The dispute arose between the parties regarding non-payment of rent. As per the agreement, the matter reached the Arbitrator, who allowed the petitioner/landlord&#039;s claim and directed recovery of a sum along with GST, interest, and other expenses. The petitioner claimed to have secured keys from security guards, while the respondent denied having any security guard. A criminal case was registered, and an application was filed on 17-10-2023. The vacation Court heard the matter and passed an order on 18-10-2023 after considering objections. The order stayed the Arbitrator&#039;s award, subject to the respondent furnishing a security deposit covering 5% of the award amount and granted a temporary injunction restraining the petitioner from disturbing the respondent&#039;s peaceful possession. The petitioner argued that the Court passed the order in a hurry, but the High Court dismissed the petition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 03 Aug 2024 08:09:10 +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=762750" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Arbitration Award Stayed: Court Orders Security Deposit and Injunction to Protect Tenant&#039;s Possession Amidst Dispute.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=80073</link>
      <description>The dispute arose between the parties regarding non-payment of rent. As per the agreement, the matter reached the Arbitrator, who allowed the petitioner/landlord&#039;s claim and directed recovery of a sum along with GST, interest, and other expenses. The petitioner claimed to have secured keys from security guards, while the respondent denied having any security guard. A criminal case was registered, and an application was filed on 17-10-2023. The vacation Court heard the matter and passed an order on 18-10-2023 after considering objections. The order stayed the Arbitrator&#039;s award, subject to the respondent furnishing a security deposit covering 5% of the award amount and granted a temporary injunction restraining the petitioner from disturbing the respondent&#039;s peaceful possession. The petitioner argued that the Court passed the order in a hurry, but the High Court dismissed the petition.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 03 Aug 2024 08:09:10 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=80073</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>