<?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>2003 (9) TMI 537 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108302</link>
    <description>For transitional purposes, arbitral proceedings commence when the request for reference is received, and if that commencement predates the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the repealed Arbitration Act, 1940 continues to govern all proceedings relating to that arbitration. The expression &quot;in relation to arbitral proceedings&quot; was treated broadly to include court proceedings connected with the arbitral process, not only steps before the arbitrator. The 1996 Act therefore did not govern the application for removal and substitution of the arbitrator, and the challenge based on lack of jurisdiction under the new Act failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145319" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (9) TMI 537 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108302</link>
      <description>For transitional purposes, arbitral proceedings commence when the request for reference is received, and if that commencement predates the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the repealed Arbitration Act, 1940 continues to govern all proceedings relating to that arbitration. The expression &quot;in relation to arbitral proceedings&quot; was treated broadly to include court proceedings connected with the arbitral process, not only steps before the arbitrator. The 1996 Act therefore did not govern the application for removal and substitution of the arbitrator, and the challenge based on lack of jurisdiction under the new Act failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108302</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>