<?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>2017 (2) TMI 1239 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194372</link>
    <description>The amended arbitration law is directed at arbitrator neutrality, independence and impartiality while preserving party autonomy unless a statutory ineligibility applies. Ineligibility arises only where the arbitrator&#039;s relationship with a party, counsel or the dispute falls within the Seventh Schedule; a panel limited to serving or retired engineers from government departments or public sector undertakings was not, on these facts, shown to fall within those disqualifying categories. The contractual challenge and appointment mechanism therefore remained operative, and the court appointment of an independent tribunal was rejected, though the panel process should be broad-based and not unduly restrict the other party&#039;s choice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Sep 2017 18:11:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=488236" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 1239 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194372</link>
      <description>The amended arbitration law is directed at arbitrator neutrality, independence and impartiality while preserving party autonomy unless a statutory ineligibility applies. Ineligibility arises only where the arbitrator&#039;s relationship with a party, counsel or the dispute falls within the Seventh Schedule; a panel limited to serving or retired engineers from government departments or public sector undertakings was not, on these facts, shown to fall within those disqualifying categories. The contractual challenge and appointment mechanism therefore remained operative, and the court appointment of an independent tribunal was rejected, though the panel process should be broad-based and not unduly restrict the other party&#039;s choice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194372</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>