https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109791 Section 16(5) and (6) and section 37(2)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act were upheld as not violative of Article 14 because the legislative scheme validly distinguished between jurisdictional objections that terminate arbitral proceedings and those that only defer judicial review until the final award. The court held that postponing scrutiny in cases where the tribunal rejects a jurisdictional plea is not arbitrary, since review remains available at the statutory stage. It also treated the Supreme Court's speaking dismissal in Babar Ali as binding on the validity issue, following Kunhayammed, and concluded that the earlier ruling had already settled the challenge against the petitioners. en-us Mon, 03 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:25:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109791 Section 16(5) and (6) and section 37(2)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act were upheld as not violative of Article 14 because the legislative scheme validly distinguished between jurisdictional objections that terminate arbitral proceedings and those that only defer judicial review until the final award. The court held that postponing scrutiny in cases where the tribunal rejects a jurisdictional plea is not arbitrary, since review remains available at the statutory stage. It also treated the Supreme Court's speaking dismissal in Babar Ali as binding on the validity issue, following Kunhayammed, and concluded that the earlier ruling had already settled the challenge against the petitioners. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 03 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109791