<?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>2023 (3) TMI 1540 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458808</link>
    <description>Section 18 of the Micro, Small &amp; Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 applies the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 only after conciliation fails and the Facilitation Council itself takes up arbitration or refers the dispute to an institution or centre. The deeming fiction in Section 18(3) does not create an arbitration agreement before that stage. In the absence of an arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, jurisdiction under Section 11, including Section 11(6)(c), cannot be invoked merely because the Council declined to act as arbitrator. The petition under Section 11 was therefore held not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Nov 2024 17:17:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=778125" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (3) TMI 1540 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458808</link>
      <description>Section 18 of the Micro, Small &amp; Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 applies the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 only after conciliation fails and the Facilitation Council itself takes up arbitration or refers the dispute to an institution or centre. The deeming fiction in Section 18(3) does not create an arbitration agreement before that stage. In the absence of an arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, jurisdiction under Section 11, including Section 11(6)(c), cannot be invoked merely because the Council declined to act as arbitrator. The petition under Section 11 was therefore held not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458808</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>