<?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>2008 (3) TMI 742 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198267</link>
    <description>Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act addresses termination of an arbitrator&#039;s mandate in specified circumstances, while Section 15 provides for substitution and makes clear that termination of mandate does not automatically end the arbitral proceedings. Section 4 applies where a party knows of a non-compliance and proceeds without timely objection, resulting in waiver. On the stated facts, the petitioners participated in the schedule fixed by the arbitrator, sought extensions, and raised their complaint only later, so the objection to continuation beyond the contractual time limit was treated as waived. The challenge to termination of the mandate therefore failed, and the arbitral proceedings were allowed to continue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Jan 2018 11:52:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=506257" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (3) TMI 742 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198267</link>
      <description>Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act addresses termination of an arbitrator&#039;s mandate in specified circumstances, while Section 15 provides for substitution and makes clear that termination of mandate does not automatically end the arbitral proceedings. Section 4 applies where a party knows of a non-compliance and proceeds without timely objection, resulting in waiver. On the stated facts, the petitioners participated in the schedule fixed by the arbitrator, sought extensions, and raised their complaint only later, so the objection to continuation beyond the contractual time limit was treated as waived. The challenge to termination of the mandate therefore failed, and the arbitral proceedings were allowed to continue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198267</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>