https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105072 An exchange regulation prescribing a three-month period for referring disputes to arbitration governed the limitation question, and the subordinate bye-laws could not override that prescription unless they were genuinely inconsistent with it. On the stated facts, the cause of action arose in 1996 but the arbitration reference was made only in February 1998, so it was outside time. The letter relied on as acknowledgment did not admit liability, and no other document within the limitation period extended time. The award therefore could not stand because the reference was time-barred. en-us Thu, 23 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Mar 2012 13:30:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105072 An exchange regulation prescribing a three-month period for referring disputes to arbitration governed the limitation question, and the subordinate bye-laws could not override that prescription unless they were genuinely inconsistent with it. On the stated facts, the cause of action arose in 1996 but the arbitration reference was made only in February 1998, so it was outside time. The letter relied on as acknowledgment did not admit liability, and no other document within the limitation period extended time. The award therefore could not stand because the reference was time-barred. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 23 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105072