https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106370 Bye-law 248(a) was construed to allow arbitration of a claim against a member broker when it was connected with or incidental to a dispute against a non-member arising from the same exchange transaction, so that the matter could be resolved in one forum and avoid fragmented or inconsistent proceedings. Bye-law 282, governing disputes between members, did not exclude such a connected claim from Bye-law 248(a). The court also treated the jurisdictional objection as sufficiently raised even though Bye-law 248 was not expressly pleaded, because the pleadings as a whole challenged the tribunal's jurisdiction and the existence of any arbitration agreement. The petition accordingly failed. en-us Thu, 20 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:09:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106370 Bye-law 248(a) was construed to allow arbitration of a claim against a member broker when it was connected with or incidental to a dispute against a non-member arising from the same exchange transaction, so that the matter could be resolved in one forum and avoid fragmented or inconsistent proceedings. Bye-law 282, governing disputes between members, did not exclude such a connected claim from Bye-law 248(a). The court also treated the jurisdictional objection as sufficiently raised even though Bye-law 248 was not expressly pleaded, because the pleadings as a whole challenged the tribunal's jurisdiction and the existence of any arbitration agreement. The petition accordingly failed. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 20 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106370