https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111290 The article examines a writ challenge to Bombay Stock Exchange Bye-law 274A and the scope of remedies under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It states that writ jurisdiction was maintainable because the challenge went to the appellate forum's competence and the bye-law's validity, and that the existence of statutory remedies did not bar constitutional review. It further explains that Bye-law 274A was read as allowing an optional second arbitration tier and was not inconsistent with the Act. However, an order under section 16 was treated as an order, not an award, so no appeal lay under the bye-law; the proper remedy was under section 37(2). en-us Mon, 23 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Dec 2014 14:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111290 The article examines a writ challenge to Bombay Stock Exchange Bye-law 274A and the scope of remedies under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It states that writ jurisdiction was maintainable because the challenge went to the appellate forum's competence and the bye-law's validity, and that the existence of statutory remedies did not bar constitutional review. It further explains that Bye-law 274A was read as allowing an optional second arbitration tier and was not inconsistent with the Act. However, an order under section 16 was treated as an order, not an award, so no appeal lay under the bye-law; the proper remedy was under section 37(2). Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 23 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111290