https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336915 Pendency of proceedings before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction and registration as a sick industrial company did not bar arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was treated as protecting against coercive proceedings of the kind specifically covered by that provision, while arbitration was viewed as adjudication of liability rather than enforcement or recovery. The repeal of SICA did not alter that result. Where the arbitration clause contemplated mutual consent but the parties failed to agree on an arbitrator, the Court could appoint an independent arbitrator under Section 11, and the dispute was directed to proceed before the appointed tribunal. en-us Thu, 01 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Dec 2016 13:44:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336915 Pendency of proceedings before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction and registration as a sick industrial company did not bar arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was treated as protecting against coercive proceedings of the kind specifically covered by that provision, while arbitration was viewed as adjudication of liability rather than enforcement or recovery. The repeal of SICA did not alter that result. Where the arbitration clause contemplated mutual consent but the parties failed to agree on an arbitrator, the Court could appoint an independent arbitrator under Section 11, and the dispute was directed to proceed before the appointed tribunal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 01 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336915