<?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 (8) TMI 404 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110546</link>
    <description>Exchange bye-laws treated securities bargains as subject to the Bombay Stock Exchange&#039;s arbitration framework, so a dispute between a member and a non-member remained referable even after the member&#039;s cessation from membership during the reference. The decisive factor was the parties&#039; status and the transaction&#039;s contractual-regulatory setting at the time of the bargain, not the continued membership of the party during the arbitration. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act also required an arbitrator to disclose, without delay, any circumstance giving rise to justifiable doubts as to independence or impartiality. Non-disclosure of the arbitrator&#039;s advocate&#039;s professional connection with the respondent&#039;s advocate breached that mandatory duty and vitiated the awards, requiring the disputes to be reheard by a fresh panel.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:02:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147562" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (8) TMI 404 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110546</link>
      <description>Exchange bye-laws treated securities bargains as subject to the Bombay Stock Exchange&#039;s arbitration framework, so a dispute between a member and a non-member remained referable even after the member&#039;s cessation from membership during the reference. The decisive factor was the parties&#039; status and the transaction&#039;s contractual-regulatory setting at the time of the bargain, not the continued membership of the party during the arbitration. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act also required an arbitrator to disclose, without delay, any circumstance giving rise to justifiable doubts as to independence or impartiality. Non-disclosure of the arbitrator&#039;s advocate&#039;s professional connection with the respondent&#039;s advocate breached that mandatory duty and vitiated the awards, requiring the disputes to be reheard by a fresh panel.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110546</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>