<?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>2005 (9) TMI 682 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284004</link>
    <description>A statutory appellate remedy for school service disputes could not be displaced by a contractual arbitration clause in school rules. The Delhi School Tribunal, constituted under the Delhi School Education Act, remained the exclusive forum for appeals against dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, so the employee&#039;s statutory appeal was maintainable and need not be referred to arbitration. The Tribunal also possessed judicial characteristics, including presiding judicial officers, appellate powers, procedural control and authority to stay the impugned order, and therefore qualified as a judicial authority for Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Oct 2019 13:14:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=591806" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (9) TMI 682 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284004</link>
      <description>A statutory appellate remedy for school service disputes could not be displaced by a contractual arbitration clause in school rules. The Delhi School Tribunal, constituted under the Delhi School Education Act, remained the exclusive forum for appeals against dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, so the employee&#039;s statutory appeal was maintainable and need not be referred to arbitration. The Tribunal also possessed judicial characteristics, including presiding judicial officers, appellate powers, procedural control and authority to stay the impugned order, and therefore qualified as a judicial authority for Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284004</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>