<?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>2005 (10) TMI 571 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197837</link>
    <description>A partnership deed provided for disputes to be referred to a named sole arbitrator, and for substitution if that arbitrator was unavailable or declined to act. When the named arbitrator declined the reference, the contractual substitution mechanism under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was held to operate, making appointment of another arbitrator appropriate. A retired Judge was appointed as arbitrator, with liberty to ermine his fees.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Jan 2018 10:25:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=504769" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 571 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197837</link>
      <description>A partnership deed provided for disputes to be referred to a named sole arbitrator, and for substitution if that arbitrator was unavailable or declined to act. When the named arbitrator declined the reference, the contractual substitution mechanism under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was held to operate, making appointment of another arbitrator appropriate. A retired Judge was appointed as arbitrator, with liberty to ermine his fees.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197837</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>