https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298768 In an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Code of Civil Procedure was treated as not applying proprio vigore, because the Act was viewed as a complete code and Section 5 restricts judicial intervention to what the Act expressly permits. The absence of any provision comparable to Section 41(a) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was treated as significant, and a cross-objection under Order XLI Rule 22 was stated to be impermissible in principle. The earlier decision in ITI Ltd. was noted as binding, and the contrary view was said to require reconsideration by a larger Bench. en-us Thu, 24 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Nov 2021 09:17:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298768 In an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Code of Civil Procedure was treated as not applying proprio vigore, because the Act was viewed as a complete code and Section 5 restricts judicial intervention to what the Act expressly permits. The absence of any provision comparable to Section 41(a) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was treated as significant, and a cross-objection under Order XLI Rule 22 was stated to be impermissible in principle. The earlier decision in ITI Ltd. was noted as binding, and the contrary view was said to require reconsideration by a larger Bench. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 24 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298768