https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108933 Where stock exchange bye-laws require arbitrators to deliver an award within four months, or within any valid extension, failure to do so activates the umpire mechanism. The pleadings showed the arbitrators had been appointed long earlier, the accounts had even been referred to an auditor, and no award had been made; those facts were not controverted. On that basis, Bye-law No. 248(1) applied, and the Council of Management was bound to appoint an umpire. The writ petition therefore succeeded. en-us Thu, 07 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Apr 2012 18:37:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108933 Where stock exchange bye-laws require arbitrators to deliver an award within four months, or within any valid extension, failure to do so activates the umpire mechanism. The pleadings showed the arbitrators had been appointed long earlier, the accounts had even been referred to an auditor, and no award had been made; those facts were not controverted. On that basis, Bye-law No. 248(1) applied, and the Council of Management was bound to appoint an umpire. The writ petition therefore succeeded. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 07 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108933