<?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>2015 (2) TMI 488 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256488</link>
    <description>Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 permits a challenge to an arbitral award only by a party to the arbitration agreement, as &quot;party&quot; under section 2(1)(h) means a party to that agreement. The Act&#039;s scheme confines the rights of initiation, participation, receipt of the award and challenge to such parties, and a third person cannot invoke section 34 merely because the award affects its interests. The court held that members of a co-operative housing society who were neither parties to the arbitration agreement nor to the arbitration proceedings had no locus standi to file the petition, which was therefore not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2015 15:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=376005" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (2) TMI 488 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256488</link>
      <description>Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 permits a challenge to an arbitral award only by a party to the arbitration agreement, as &quot;party&quot; under section 2(1)(h) means a party to that agreement. The Act&#039;s scheme confines the rights of initiation, participation, receipt of the award and challenge to such parties, and a third person cannot invoke section 34 merely because the award affects its interests. The court held that members of a co-operative housing society who were neither parties to the arbitration agreement nor to the arbitration proceedings had no locus standi to file the petition, which was therefore not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256488</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>