<?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>1995 (10) TMI 245 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301689</link>
    <description>Section 41-A(7) was construed to transfer pending arbitrations to the Arbitration Tribunal on commencement of the amending Act where no award had been made before that date. The words &quot;by the said date&quot; were read contextually to mean before the date of commencement, so an award made after commencement, even on the same calendar date, was ineffective. The provision was treated as automatically divesting the arbitrator of jurisdiction once the Act came into force.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Apr 2022 16:47:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=676145" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (10) TMI 245 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301689</link>
      <description>Section 41-A(7) was construed to transfer pending arbitrations to the Arbitration Tribunal on commencement of the amending Act where no award had been made before that date. The words &quot;by the said date&quot; were read contextually to mean before the date of commencement, so an award made after commencement, even on the same calendar date, was ineffective. The provision was treated as automatically divesting the arbitrator of jurisdiction once the Act came into force.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301689</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>