https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105015 The Bombay High Court noted that section 28(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 confers judicial power to enlarge time for making an award even after expiry, and this was not inconsistent with Bombay Stock Exchange bye-laws that gave the Governing Board or President only administrative extension powers. The Court also stated that the bye-laws did not authorise an arbitrator to extend time without consent, so no inconsistency with section 28(2) was shown. On the challenge to the award, the Court held that an entry in earlier hearing notes did not amount to arbitral misconduct, and the adverse inference drawn from the respondent's silence was not perverse or erroneous on the face of the award. The award was sustained. en-us Tue, 16 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Mar 2012 11:49:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105015 The Bombay High Court noted that section 28(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 confers judicial power to enlarge time for making an award even after expiry, and this was not inconsistent with Bombay Stock Exchange bye-laws that gave the Governing Board or President only administrative extension powers. The Court also stated that the bye-laws did not authorise an arbitrator to extend time without consent, so no inconsistency with section 28(2) was shown. On the challenge to the award, the Court held that an entry in earlier hearing notes did not amount to arbitral misconduct, and the adverse inference drawn from the respondent's silence was not perverse or erroneous on the face of the award. The award was sustained. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 16 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105015