<?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 (1) TMI 538 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108398</link>
    <description>Resignation of a nominee arbitrator created a vacancy requiring substitution under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the Act&#039;s scheme favours continuity of the reference and expeditious progress of the proceedings. The court directed appointment of a substitute nominee arbitrator, with a fallback appointment if the respondent did not act within time. Objections based on the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement, and the pendency of writ proceedings, did not bar appointment under section 11 because such issues are ordinarily for the arbitral tribunal under section 16 and the limited writ stay did not the continuation of the arbitration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Mar 2012 13:22:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145415" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (1) TMI 538 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108398</link>
      <description>Resignation of a nominee arbitrator created a vacancy requiring substitution under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the Act&#039;s scheme favours continuity of the reference and expeditious progress of the proceedings. The court directed appointment of a substitute nominee arbitrator, with a fallback appointment if the respondent did not act within time. Objections based on the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement, and the pendency of writ proceedings, did not bar appointment under section 11 because such issues are ordinarily for the arbitral tribunal under section 16 and the limited writ stay did not the continuation of the arbitration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108398</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>