https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108455 Objections to an arbitral tribunal's competence or jurisdiction had to be pursued under the statutory challenge mechanism and could not be raised for the first time in execution to resist enforcement of the award. The executing court was not entitled to permit a bypass of the challenge provisions by re-agitating such grounds, and the jurisdictional objection was therefore not maintainable. Allegations that the interim award was unstamped, insufficiently stamped, or not in the prescribed form did not by themselves invalidate execution; however, where copies of the award showed inconsistency as to signatures, the original award had to be examined before further action. en-us Fri, 28 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Mar 2012 16:21:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108455 Objections to an arbitral tribunal's competence or jurisdiction had to be pursued under the statutory challenge mechanism and could not be raised for the first time in execution to resist enforcement of the award. The executing court was not entitled to permit a bypass of the challenge provisions by re-agitating such grounds, and the jurisdictional objection was therefore not maintainable. Allegations that the interim award was unstamped, insufficiently stamped, or not in the prescribed form did not by themselves invalidate execution; however, where copies of the award showed inconsistency as to signatures, the original award had to be examined before further action. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 28 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108455