<?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>2008 (3) TMI 653 - Andhra Pradesh High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165137</link>
    <description>Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 vests the judicial power to appoint an arbitrator in the Chief Justice of the High Court or the Chief Justice of India, with delegation only to another Judge of the same High Court or Supreme Court, as applicable. A District Judge cannot exercise that power. On that basis, the District Court&#039;s appointment of an arbitrator was treated as lacking authority and the appointment order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2014 12:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=355437" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (3) TMI 653 - Andhra Pradesh High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165137</link>
      <description>Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 vests the judicial power to appoint an arbitrator in the Chief Justice of the High Court or the Chief Justice of India, with delegation only to another Judge of the same High Court or Supreme Court, as applicable. A District Judge cannot exercise that power. On that basis, the District Court&#039;s appointment of an arbitrator was treated as lacking authority and the appointment order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165137</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>