<?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>1993 (12) TMI 237 - HOUSE OF LORDS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296067</link>
    <description>Section 13A of the Arbitration Act 1950, inserted by the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, was held to permit an arbitrator to take account of delay occurring before commencement when deciding whether to dismiss a claim for inordinate and inexcusable delay. Although the dismissal power operated only after commencement, its application depended on the overall period of inactivity, and the presumption against retrospectivity did not require pre-commencement delay to be ignored. The provision was read as aimed at curing stale arbitral claims and aligning arbitration with High Court jurisdiction, so the dismissal was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Jul 2021 15:04:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=648485" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (12) TMI 237 - HOUSE OF LORDS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296067</link>
      <description>Section 13A of the Arbitration Act 1950, inserted by the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, was held to permit an arbitrator to take account of delay occurring before commencement when deciding whether to dismiss a claim for inordinate and inexcusable delay. Although the dismissal power operated only after commencement, its application depended on the overall period of inactivity, and the presumption against retrospectivity did not require pre-commencement delay to be ignored. The provision was read as aimed at curing stale arbitral claims and aligning arbitration with High Court jurisdiction, so the dismissal was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296067</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>