<?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 (3) TMI 112 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257176</link>
    <description>Suspension or cancellation of a stockbroker&#039;s exchange membership did not extinguish the contractual right to arbitrate disputes arising from pre-suspension transactions; the arbitration agreement and arbitral jurisdiction remained operative despite later membership changes. An award was also found unsustainable where the tribunal relied substantially on extraneous material, including an enquiry report, rather than independently adjudicating the merits, and where requests for documents under section 27 and for cross-examination were rejected without proper consideration. The award and impugned order were therefore set aside, while the parties remained free to pursue arbitration afresh.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Dec 2014 13:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=377928" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (3) TMI 112 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257176</link>
      <description>Suspension or cancellation of a stockbroker&#039;s exchange membership did not extinguish the contractual right to arbitrate disputes arising from pre-suspension transactions; the arbitration agreement and arbitral jurisdiction remained operative despite later membership changes. An award was also found unsustainable where the tribunal relied substantially on extraneous material, including an enquiry report, rather than independently adjudicating the merits, and where requests for documents under section 27 and for cross-examination were rejected without proper consideration. The award and impugned order were therefore set aside, while the parties remained free to pursue arbitration afresh.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257176</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>