<?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>2016 (1) TMI 1383 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275303</link>
    <description>Section 26 of the 2015 Amendment Act kept the pre-amendment Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 regime applicable to arbitral proceedings commenced before the amendment, unless the parties agreed otherwise. As the award arose from such proceedings, the amended security requirement for stay did not apply, and the award debtor could not be compelled to furnish security under the post-amendment framework. The delay in filing the set-aside application was also condoned because it was filed within the further limitation period and sufficient cause was shown. The application to set aside the award was therefore admitted and was to proceed on the merits under the pre-amendment regime.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2018 06:41:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=536036" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 1383 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275303</link>
      <description>Section 26 of the 2015 Amendment Act kept the pre-amendment Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 regime applicable to arbitral proceedings commenced before the amendment, unless the parties agreed otherwise. As the award arose from such proceedings, the amended security requirement for stay did not apply, and the award debtor could not be compelled to furnish security under the post-amendment framework. The delay in filing the set-aside application was also condoned because it was filed within the further limitation period and sufficient cause was shown. The application to set aside the award was therefore admitted and was to proceed on the merits under the pre-amendment regime.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275303</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>