https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=222136 The court held that the arbitration agreement recorded in the partnership deed dated 24th April 2000 continued to exist and was binding on both parties even after the arbitral award. It was determined that disputes arising post the award could be referred to arbitration under the same agreement. Mr. Justice J.P. Devadhar (retired) was appointed as an arbitrator on behalf of the respondent, as the respondent had refused to appoint one. The court directed the appointed arbitrators to select the presiding arbitrator. The application was disposed of with no order as to costs. en-us Tue, 09 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Apr 2013 17:13:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=222136 The court held that the arbitration agreement recorded in the partnership deed dated 24th April 2000 continued to exist and was binding on both parties even after the arbitral award. It was determined that disputes arising post the award could be referred to arbitration under the same agreement. Mr. Justice J.P. Devadhar (retired) was appointed as an arbitrator on behalf of the respondent, as the respondent had refused to appoint one. The court directed the appointed arbitrators to select the presiding arbitrator. The application was disposed of with no order as to costs. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 09 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=222136