https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256485 A writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 was found not maintainable to challenge an appellate award under the Permanent Machinery of Arbitrators, because the dispute did not directly impeach the arbitration mechanism itself. The Delhi HC noted that judicial recourse in arbitration matters is limited by Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and that a two-tier arbitral procedure is not prohibited by that Act. It further observed that the parties had voluntarily accepted the contractual dispute-resolution framework, and that the Section 28 argument under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 did not change the maintainability analysis. The appellate award was therefore left undisturbed. en-us Fri, 07 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Nov 2017 15:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256485 A writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 was found not maintainable to challenge an appellate award under the Permanent Machinery of Arbitrators, because the dispute did not directly impeach the arbitration mechanism itself. The Delhi HC noted that judicial recourse in arbitration matters is limited by Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and that a two-tier arbitral procedure is not prohibited by that Act. It further observed that the parties had voluntarily accepted the contractual dispute-resolution framework, and that the Section 28 argument under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 did not change the maintainability analysis. The appellate award was therefore left undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 07 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256485