<?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>2012 (3) TMI 604 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198283</link>
    <description>Where an arbitration agreement fixed a mandatory time limit for completion of the reference, the arbitrator&#039;s mandate terminated automatically on expiry of that period absent party consent to extend it. Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 treated failure or inability to act without undue delay as a ground for termination of mandate, and Section 15 permitted substitution only after such termination. The Court rejected waiver and acquiescence, holding that mere participation in later proceedings could not override the contractual time limit or revive a lapsed mandate. The subsequent appointment could not validly continue the reference, and the arbitration was held to have come to an end.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Jan 2018 12:59:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=506284" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (3) TMI 604 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198283</link>
      <description>Where an arbitration agreement fixed a mandatory time limit for completion of the reference, the arbitrator&#039;s mandate terminated automatically on expiry of that period absent party consent to extend it. Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 treated failure or inability to act without undue delay as a ground for termination of mandate, and Section 15 permitted substitution only after such termination. The Court rejected waiver and acquiescence, holding that mere participation in later proceedings could not override the contractual time limit or revive a lapsed mandate. The subsequent appointment could not validly continue the reference, and the arbitration was held to have come to an end.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198283</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>