<?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>2000 (10) TMI 874 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104893</link>
    <description>Arbitrator appointment under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act raises whether the Chief Justice or nominee acts administratively or judicially when deciding preliminary issues. Threshold matters may include the existence of an arbitration agreement or dispute, excepted matters, and limitation, despite the arbitral tribunal&#039;s power to rule on jurisdiction. Treating the appointment function as administrative may cause parallel proceedings and delay. Competing approaches to the permissible scope of court intervention at the appointment stage required reconsideration, and the question was placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Aug 2013 15:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141932" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (10) TMI 874 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104893</link>
      <description>Arbitrator appointment under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act raises whether the Chief Justice or nominee acts administratively or judicially when deciding preliminary issues. Threshold matters may include the existence of an arbitration agreement or dispute, excepted matters, and limitation, despite the arbitral tribunal&#039;s power to rule on jurisdiction. Treating the appointment function as administrative may cause parallel proceedings and delay. Competing approaches to the permissible scope of court intervention at the appointment stage required reconsideration, and the question was placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104893</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>