<?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>2021 (9) TMI 1572 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461205</link>
    <description>Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act permits an arbitral tribunal to secure an amount in dispute on the basis of a sustainable prima facie finding of liability or admission, and the provision is not confined by the literal text of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC. A tribunal may therefore direct deposit of an admitted amount, but it cannot order outright payment to the claimant as interim relief. Applying that principle, the direction to secure the admitted amount was upheld only as a court deposit pending the award, while the separate bank guarantee directed for the residual gold value was set aside because liability for that sum had not been prima facie established on the record.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2025 14:23:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=807832" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (9) TMI 1572 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461205</link>
      <description>Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act permits an arbitral tribunal to secure an amount in dispute on the basis of a sustainable prima facie finding of liability or admission, and the provision is not confined by the literal text of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC. A tribunal may therefore direct deposit of an admitted amount, but it cannot order outright payment to the claimant as interim relief. Applying that principle, the direction to secure the admitted amount was upheld only as a court deposit pending the award, while the separate bank guarantee directed for the residual gold value was set aside because liability for that sum had not been prima facie established on the record.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461205</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>