<?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>2009 (3) TMI 211 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48555</link>
    <description>The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Single Judge&#039;s judgment and restoring the arbitrator&#039;s award on the price difference claims. The court emphasized that the Single Judge should have applied recognized principles and not substituted his understanding for that of the arbitrator. The decree was to be drawn up as per the award, and the appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2014 13:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87041" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (3) TMI 211 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48555</link>
      <description>The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Single Judge&#039;s judgment and restoring the arbitrator&#039;s award on the price difference claims. The court emphasized that the Single Judge should have applied recognized principles and not substituted his understanding for that of the arbitrator. The decree was to be drawn up as per the award, and the appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48555</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>