<?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>2020 (1) TMI 1720 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461130</link>
    <description>An arbitral tribunal may require alternative security under Section 17 where the asset offered is already encumbered and no longer provides dependable protection for the claim. Here, the tribunal found the property used as security was subject to a prior bank charge and that the earlier undertaking had not disclosed the encumbrances, so it directed the party to furnish a bank guarantee or place the amount in fixed deposit. On appeal under Section 37, the High Court held interference was unwarranted because the tribunal had exercised its discretion on relevant material, balanced the equities, and committed no perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error. The interim order was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2025 20:18:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=806584" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (1) TMI 1720 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461130</link>
      <description>An arbitral tribunal may require alternative security under Section 17 where the asset offered is already encumbered and no longer provides dependable protection for the claim. Here, the tribunal found the property used as security was subject to a prior bank charge and that the earlier undertaking had not disclosed the encumbrances, so it directed the party to furnish a bank guarantee or place the amount in fixed deposit. On appeal under Section 37, the High Court held interference was unwarranted because the tribunal had exercised its discretion on relevant material, balanced the equities, and committed no perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error. The interim order was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461130</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>