https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174183 Arbitration being a concurrent subject, the State amendment was within competence because it had Presidential assent, so the competence challenge failed. Allegations of legislative mala fides did not invalidate a law otherwise within competence, so that challenge also failed. Awards of Special Arbitration Tribunals did not merge into court decrees merely because they were made rules of court, as that step served enforcement only. However, the legislature could not retrospectively nullify those statutory adjudications, since that would amount to impermissible exercise of judicial power. The amendment was therefore unconstitutional to the extent it invalidated the awards. en-us Fri, 12 May 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Oct 2015 18:06:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174183 Arbitration being a concurrent subject, the State amendment was within competence because it had Presidential assent, so the competence challenge failed. Allegations of legislative mala fides did not invalidate a law otherwise within competence, so that challenge also failed. Awards of Special Arbitration Tribunals did not merge into court decrees merely because they were made rules of court, as that step served enforcement only. However, the legislature could not retrospectively nullify those statutory adjudications, since that would amount to impermissible exercise of judicial power. The amendment was therefore unconstitutional to the extent it invalidated the awards. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 12 May 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174183