<?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>2016 (3) TMI 1027 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325843</link>
    <description>Where an arbitration clause exists and the respondent does not contest the petition or dispute the existence of the clause, the Court may accept the petitioner&#039;s uncontroverted averments for the limited purpose of considering reference to arbitration. On that basis, the Court found no reason to decline appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A sole arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2016 10:23:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=421890" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 1027 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325843</link>
      <description>Where an arbitration clause exists and the respondent does not contest the petition or dispute the existence of the clause, the Court may accept the petitioner&#039;s uncontroverted averments for the limited purpose of considering reference to arbitration. On that basis, the Court found no reason to decline appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A sole arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325843</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>