<?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>Petitioner&#039;s claims on contract performance and refund fall under Arbitrator&#039;s jurisdiction, not time-barred under contract rules</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91479</link>
    <description>The HC allowed the petitioner&#039;s application, holding that the question of entitlement to specific performance or refund under the contract, including claims arising from the respondents&#039; failure to deliver flats and parking spaces, falls within the jurisdiction of the learned Arbitrator. The court found the dispute not to be ex facie time-barred or barred by limitation, emphasizing that construction contracts do not generally regard time as the essence. The petitioner&#039;s claim for refund and penalty, as acknowledged by the respondents in a December 15, 2020 letter, was held to potentially give rise to a fresh cause of action. The HC declined to dismiss the petition solely on the basis of an earlier alleged default date, directing that the Ar.....</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2025 08:32:34 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2025 08:32:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=842481" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Petitioner&#039;s claims on contract performance and refund fall under Arbitrator&#039;s jurisdiction, not time-barred under contract rules</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91479</link>
      <description>The HC allowed the petitioner&#039;s application, holding that the question of entitlement to specific performance or refund under the contract, including claims arising from the respondents&#039; failure to deliver flats and parking spaces, falls within the jurisdiction of the learned Arbitrator. The court found the dispute not to be ex facie time-barred or barred by limitation, emphasizing that construction contracts do not generally regard time as the essence. The petitioner&#039;s claim for refund and penalty, as acknowledged by the respondents in a December 15, 2020 letter, was held to potentially give rise to a fresh cause of action. The HC declined to dismiss the petition solely on the basis of an earlier alleged default date, directing that the Ar.....</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2025 08:32:34 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91479</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>