<?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>1973 (8) TMI 172 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288791</link>
    <description>An arbitrator under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 who passes an ex parte award in a claim proceeding becomes functus officio and, absent statutory authority in the Act or Rules, cannot entertain an application to set aside that award and restore the dispute for hearing. The remedy, if any, lies in appeal under the Act before the statutory tribunal, not in reopening the award before the same arbitrator. The judgment also indicates that extraordinary writ jurisdiction should not be invoked to bypass the statutory appellate framework. The application to set aside the ex parte award was therefore treated as incompetent, and interference under Article 226 was declined.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2020 16:00:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=616225" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1973 (8) TMI 172 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288791</link>
      <description>An arbitrator under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 who passes an ex parte award in a claim proceeding becomes functus officio and, absent statutory authority in the Act or Rules, cannot entertain an application to set aside that award and restore the dispute for hearing. The remedy, if any, lies in appeal under the Act before the statutory tribunal, not in reopening the award before the same arbitrator. The judgment also indicates that extraordinary writ jurisdiction should not be invoked to bypass the statutory appellate framework. The application to set aside the ex parte award was therefore treated as incompetent, and interference under Article 226 was declined.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288791</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>