<?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>1990 (12) TMI 330 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200796</link>
    <description>Where a contract makes the Superintending Engineer&#039;s decision final on disputes as to rates and the arbitration clause expressly excludes such matters, a dispute over the rate payable for substituted stone chips falls outside the arbitration agreement. The reference to arbitration is therefore incompetent, so the arbitrator cannot derive jurisdiction from it. The resulting awards are void.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2018 18:40:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=517759" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (12) TMI 330 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200796</link>
      <description>Where a contract makes the Superintending Engineer&#039;s decision final on disputes as to rates and the arbitration clause expressly excludes such matters, a dispute over the rate payable for substituted stone chips falls outside the arbitration agreement. The reference to arbitration is therefore incompetent, so the arbitrator cannot derive jurisdiction from it. The resulting awards are void.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200796</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>