<?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>1999 (7) TMI 712 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307124</link>
    <description>A contractually staged dispute-resolution mechanism must be followed before arbitration is invoked: disputes were first to go to the Engineer, then to the Adjudicator within the prescribed time, and only thereafter to arbitration. Because the applicant did not seek the Engineer&#039;s decision and also prevented the Adjudicator from acting by disputing that forum&#039;s authority, the pre-conditions to arbitration were not exhausted and had not been waived. The arbitration clause continued to operate despite alleged termination of the contract, but it could be enforced only after compliance with the agreed preliminary steps. The Section 11(6) application was therefore premature and not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Mar 2023 09:52:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=708247" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (7) TMI 712 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307124</link>
      <description>A contractually staged dispute-resolution mechanism must be followed before arbitration is invoked: disputes were first to go to the Engineer, then to the Adjudicator within the prescribed time, and only thereafter to arbitration. Because the applicant did not seek the Engineer&#039;s decision and also prevented the Adjudicator from acting by disputing that forum&#039;s authority, the pre-conditions to arbitration were not exhausted and had not been waived. The arbitration clause continued to operate despite alleged termination of the contract, but it could be enforced only after compliance with the agreed preliminary steps. The Section 11(6) application was therefore premature and not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307124</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>