https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423256 A State law on arbitration was treated as falling within the Concurrent List under the doctrine of pith and substance, and Presidential assent under Article 254(2) protected its operation in Kerala. The Court also held that the UNCITRAL Model Law resolution was only recommendatory and did not attract Article 253. However, a law that cancels arbitration clauses and reopens awards already made rule of court impermissibly interferes with final judicial determinations. To that extent, the statute was found to trench upon judicial power and breach the separation of powers. en-us Wed, 04 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Jun 2022 13:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423256 A State law on arbitration was treated as falling within the Concurrent List under the doctrine of pith and substance, and Presidential assent under Article 254(2) protected its operation in Kerala. The Court also held that the UNCITRAL Model Law resolution was only recommendatory and did not attract Article 253. However, a law that cancels arbitration clauses and reopens awards already made rule of court impermissibly interferes with final judicial determinations. To that extent, the statute was found to trench upon judicial power and breach the separation of powers. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 04 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423256