<?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>2025 (3) TMI 184 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766799</link>
    <description>An LLP may be brought into arbitration even if it is not a signatory to the LLP agreement where the dispute concerns the construction or application of that agreement, the business or affairs of the LLP, or the rights, duties and liabilities governed by it. The LLP Act, 2008 and the First Schedule support arbitration of disputes arising out of the LLP agreement, and the LLP is not treated as a stranger to arrangements regulating its own affairs. Questions of joinder, maintainability, and the scope of claims were treated as matters for the arbitral tribunal&#039;s jurisdictional competence, and the objection based solely on non-signatory status was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2025 07:49:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=803888" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 184 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766799</link>
      <description>An LLP may be brought into arbitration even if it is not a signatory to the LLP agreement where the dispute concerns the construction or application of that agreement, the business or affairs of the LLP, or the rights, duties and liabilities governed by it. The LLP Act, 2008 and the First Schedule support arbitration of disputes arising out of the LLP agreement, and the LLP is not treated as a stranger to arrangements regulating its own affairs. Questions of joinder, maintainability, and the scope of claims were treated as matters for the arbitral tribunal&#039;s jurisdictional competence, and the objection based solely on non-signatory status was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766799</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>