<?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>1981 (4) TMI 285 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471200</link>
    <description>Arbitration petitions under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 accrue when an arbitrable claim is made and repudiated, not merely on contractual breach or lease expiry; the petition was therefore within the three-year limitation period under Article 137. Section 15 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 did not bar jurisdiction because a Section 20 petition seeks enforcement of an arbitration agreement rather than adjudication of eviction, rent or damages. Estate Officer proceedings did not prevent arbitration. Disputes over lease duration, rent enhancement and eviction during the claimed lease term required interpretation of the lease and fell within the arbitration clause. The agreement was filed and covered disputes referred to an arbitrator.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2026 13:05:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=918921" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (4) TMI 285 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471200</link>
      <description>Arbitration petitions under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 accrue when an arbitrable claim is made and repudiated, not merely on contractual breach or lease expiry; the petition was therefore within the three-year limitation period under Article 137. Section 15 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 did not bar jurisdiction because a Section 20 petition seeks enforcement of an arbitration agreement rather than adjudication of eviction, rent or damages. Estate Officer proceedings did not prevent arbitration. Disputes over lease duration, rent enhancement and eviction during the claimed lease term required interpretation of the lease and fell within the arbitration clause. The agreement was filed and covered disputes referred to an arbitrator.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471200</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>