<?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>2020 (4) TMI 831 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394924</link>
    <description>A party that knows of a jurisdictional or venue defect in arbitration but fails to raise a timely objection before the tribunal is deemed to have waived that objection under the arbitration framework. The text states that where the respondent did not participate in the proceedings, did not object to the tribunal&#039;s authority, and allowed an ex parte award to be made, it could not later challenge the place of arbitration or the tribunal&#039;s jurisdiction after the award. It further notes that a later attempt to reopen the Section 34 dismissal on venue-based jurisdictional grounds was not sustainable once the objection had been forfeited.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2025 12:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=611657" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (4) TMI 831 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394924</link>
      <description>A party that knows of a jurisdictional or venue defect in arbitration but fails to raise a timely objection before the tribunal is deemed to have waived that objection under the arbitration framework. The text states that where the respondent did not participate in the proceedings, did not object to the tribunal&#039;s authority, and allowed an ex parte award to be made, it could not later challenge the place of arbitration or the tribunal&#039;s jurisdiction after the award. It further notes that a later attempt to reopen the Section 34 dismissal on venue-based jurisdictional grounds was not sustainable once the objection had been forfeited.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394924</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>