https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160259 Where parties consented to conduct arbitral proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, that regime governed both the proceedings and any post-award challenge, and the earlier Arbitration Act, 1940 did not revive for challenging the award. The Court held that, absent express retention of supervisory control, an application to modify or set aside the award had to be brought before the principal civil court of original jurisdiction under the 1996 Act. It declined to bypass that statutory forum through Article 142 and relegated the applicant to the statutory remedy, with delay in filing objections to be condoned if filed within the stipulated period. en-us Thu, 18 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Jun 2014 17:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160259 Where parties consented to conduct arbitral proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, that regime governed both the proceedings and any post-award challenge, and the earlier Arbitration Act, 1940 did not revive for challenging the award. The Court held that, absent express retention of supervisory control, an application to modify or set aside the award had to be brought before the principal civil court of original jurisdiction under the 1996 Act. It declined to bypass that statutory forum through Article 142 and relegated the applicant to the statutory remedy, with delay in filing objections to be condoned if filed within the stipulated period. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 18 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160259