https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105308 An arbitral award is not liable to be set aside merely because the arbitrator had earlier continued an interim arrangement, where the parties had consented to the appointment, participated throughout, and no new bias or incapacity was shown. A challenge based on lack of notice or opportunity also failed because the record showed repeated chances to file a defence, multiple adjournments, and no breach of natural justice. Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 was held inapplicable in the absence of a winding-up order barring continuation of proceedings. The broader challenge under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 likewise failed because interference is confined to statutory grounds. en-us Mon, 12 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Mar 2012 12:00:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105308 An arbitral award is not liable to be set aside merely because the arbitrator had earlier continued an interim arrangement, where the parties had consented to the appointment, participated throughout, and no new bias or incapacity was shown. A challenge based on lack of notice or opportunity also failed because the record showed repeated chances to file a defence, multiple adjournments, and no breach of natural justice. Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 was held inapplicable in the absence of a winding-up order barring continuation of proceedings. The broader challenge under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 likewise failed because interference is confined to statutory grounds. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 12 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105308