<?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>1933 (8) TMI 5 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283930</link>
    <description>A domestic dispute-resolution arrangement providing for arbitrators, an umpire and a final appeal to a board of directors can produce an award within the Arbitration Act where the parties have agreed that the board&#039;s final decision is to operate as the conclusive determination. The court treated the statutory concept of submission broadly and held that such a board decision was capable of being filed as an award. However, the award was invalid because the deciding board did not remain the same throughout and did not act jointly as a properly constituted tribunal. That change in composition, absent clear authorisation in the governing rules, breached natural justice and required the award to be set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Aug 1933 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Oct 2019 16:45:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=591521" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1933 (8) TMI 5 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283930</link>
      <description>A domestic dispute-resolution arrangement providing for arbitrators, an umpire and a final appeal to a board of directors can produce an award within the Arbitration Act where the parties have agreed that the board&#039;s final decision is to operate as the conclusive determination. The court treated the statutory concept of submission broadly and held that such a board decision was capable of being filed as an award. However, the award was invalid because the deciding board did not remain the same throughout and did not act jointly as a properly constituted tribunal. That change in composition, absent clear authorisation in the governing rules, breached natural justice and required the award to be set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Aug 1933 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283930</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>