https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111348 A reasoned arbitral award based on a written arbitration agreement in contractual documents and exchange bye-laws was not interfered with under section 34. The challenge to jurisdiction failed because the arbitration clause was traceable to the transaction documents, and the objection had not been pursued before the arbitrator under section 16. The limitation plea also failed because the chronology of the demand, denial, and reference to arbitration supported timeliness. Allegations of bias and non-application of mind were rejected where the award addressed the issues and competing stands on the record. The award was sustained. en-us Wed, 08 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Apr 2012 11:37:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111348 A reasoned arbitral award based on a written arbitration agreement in contractual documents and exchange bye-laws was not interfered with under section 34. The challenge to jurisdiction failed because the arbitration clause was traceable to the transaction documents, and the objection had not been pursued before the arbitrator under section 16. The limitation plea also failed because the chronology of the demand, denial, and reference to arbitration supported timeliness. Allegations of bias and non-application of mind were rejected where the award addressed the issues and competing stands on the record. The award was sustained. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 08 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111348