<?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>2013 (11) TMI 1823 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459892</link>
    <description>Broad partnership arbitration clauses covering disputes relating to the firm or its business supported reference of a suit to arbitration. The absence of the original or a certified copy of the arbitration agreement did not defeat the application because copies of the partnership deeds containing the clauses were already on record and their existence and terms were undisputed. The Court further held that, although the parties were arrayed in different capacities across three partnership firms, they remained bound by arbitration agreements capable of covering the dispute. A claim that properties purchased in one partner&#039;s name ly belonged to the firms was held to fall within the clauses, and allegations of fraud on the pleaded facts did not exclude arbitration. The refusal to refer the matter was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Jan 2025 12:36:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=785912" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (11) TMI 1823 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459892</link>
      <description>Broad partnership arbitration clauses covering disputes relating to the firm or its business supported reference of a suit to arbitration. The absence of the original or a certified copy of the arbitration agreement did not defeat the application because copies of the partnership deeds containing the clauses were already on record and their existence and terms were undisputed. The Court further held that, although the parties were arrayed in different capacities across three partnership firms, they remained bound by arbitration agreements capable of covering the dispute. A claim that properties purchased in one partner&#039;s name ly belonged to the firms was held to fall within the clauses, and allegations of fraud on the pleaded facts did not exclude arbitration. The refusal to refer the matter was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459892</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>