<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2007 (8) TMI 652 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160495</link>
    <description>Under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a party&#039;s contractual power to appoint a sole arbitrator continues only until the other side approaches the court for appointment. Once the Section 11(6) application was filed, the respondent&#039;s right to make a belated appointment ceased, and a later appointment could not revive an exhausted contractual power. The High Court&#039;s appointment was therefore sustainable, and the attempted post-petition appointment was without jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2014 19:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=339975" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (8) TMI 652 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160495</link>
      <description>Under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a party&#039;s contractual power to appoint a sole arbitrator continues only until the other side approaches the court for appointment. Once the Section 11(6) application was filed, the respondent&#039;s right to make a belated appointment ceased, and a later appointment could not revive an exhausted contractual power. The High Court&#039;s appointment was therefore sustainable, and the attempted post-petition appointment was without jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160495</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>