https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103041 In a statutory arbitration under Stock Exchange bye-laws, the arbitrators did not become functus officio merely because the award was not made within time and one party withheld consent to enlargement. Section 28 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 generally requires party consent for extension, but section 46 makes the Act subject to the governing statutory scheme where there is inconsistency. The bye-laws expressly authorised the Governing Board or President to extend time for making the award without unanimous consent, and that statutory power prevailed over section 28(2). The time had in fact been extended from time to time, so the arbitration remained valid and within jurisdiction. en-us Wed, 10 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:59:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103041 In a statutory arbitration under Stock Exchange bye-laws, the arbitrators did not become functus officio merely because the award was not made within time and one party withheld consent to enlargement. Section 28 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 generally requires party consent for extension, but section 46 makes the Act subject to the governing statutory scheme where there is inconsistency. The bye-laws expressly authorised the Governing Board or President to extend time for making the award without unanimous consent, and that statutory power prevailed over section 28(2). The time had in fact been extended from time to time, so the arbitration remained valid and within jurisdiction. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 10 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103041