https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=222137 The court appointed an arbitrator to resolve disputes between the parties, emphasizing the existence of an arbitration agreement despite a Memorandum of Understanding dispute. The court rejected the limitation argument, ruling that the application under section 11 was timely filed within three years of the cause of action, as the arbitration proceedings had effectively commenced earlier upon receipt of the notice invoking the arbitration agreement. en-us Tue, 09 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=222137 The court appointed an arbitrator to resolve disputes between the parties, emphasizing the existence of an arbitration agreement despite a Memorandum of Understanding dispute. The court rejected the limitation argument, ruling that the application under section 11 was timely filed within three years of the cause of action, as the arbitration proceedings had effectively commenced earlier upon receipt of the notice invoking the arbitration agreement. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 09 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=222137