<?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>2009 (7) TMI 1401 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458599</link>
    <description>A dispute arising from the parties&#039; agreements and supplementary agreement was referred to arbitration under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court found that a live dispute existed requiring adjudication by arbitration and appointed a former Judge as the sole arbitrator. The petition was allowed, and the arbitral process was set in motion for determination of the contractual disputes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Nov 2024 11:53:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=776959" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 1401 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458599</link>
      <description>A dispute arising from the parties&#039; agreements and supplementary agreement was referred to arbitration under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court found that a live dispute existed requiring adjudication by arbitration and appointed a former Judge as the sole arbitrator. The petition was allowed, and the arbitral process was set in motion for determination of the contractual disputes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458599</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>