<?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>1966 (4) TMI 71 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168142</link>
    <description>A stay of suit under section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 may be refused despite an arbitration clause where surrounding circumstances make arbitration inappropriate. The Court treated the clause as working within the Co-operative Societies framework only to the extent consistent with the Arbitration Act, and noted that uncertainty over which rules would apply made compelled reference problematic. It also relied on the long pendency of the suit and the reasonable apprehension that the Registrar, having an official connection with the society and involvement in the termination, might not act with complete fairness as arbitrator. The refusal of stay was therefore upheld and the suit was allowed to proceed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Apr 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2015 14:50:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=374429" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (4) TMI 71 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168142</link>
      <description>A stay of suit under section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 may be refused despite an arbitration clause where surrounding circumstances make arbitration inappropriate. The Court treated the clause as working within the Co-operative Societies framework only to the extent consistent with the Arbitration Act, and noted that uncertainty over which rules would apply made compelled reference problematic. It also relied on the long pendency of the suit and the reasonable apprehension that the Registrar, having an official connection with the society and involvement in the termination, might not act with complete fairness as arbitrator. The refusal of stay was therefore upheld and the suit was allowed to proceed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Apr 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168142</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>