<?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>2004 (2) TMI 379 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109382</link>
    <description>Statutory references treated as arbitration under the 1996 Act attract the Act&#039;s limited court interference regime, so jurisdictional objections to the Facilitation Council&#039;s proceedings are to be decided first by the arbitral tribunal under section 16. The text explains that section 5 curtails judicial intervention except where expressly permitted, and that the civil court cannot stay the arbitration by examining the merits or the tribunal&#039;s jurisdiction in advance. It also states that an alleged absence of notice under section 21 is itself a matter for the tribunal and cannot, by itself, justify judicial suspension of the arbitral process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 May 2014 17:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146399" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (2) TMI 379 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109382</link>
      <description>Statutory references treated as arbitration under the 1996 Act attract the Act&#039;s limited court interference regime, so jurisdictional objections to the Facilitation Council&#039;s proceedings are to be decided first by the arbitral tribunal under section 16. The text explains that section 5 curtails judicial intervention except where expressly permitted, and that the civil court cannot stay the arbitration by examining the merits or the tribunal&#039;s jurisdiction in advance. It also states that an alleged absence of notice under section 21 is itself a matter for the tribunal and cannot, by itself, justify judicial suspension of the arbitral process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109382</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>