<?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>1994 (4) TMI 406 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307324</link>
    <description>An award under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act was unsustainable because the arbitrator had not been appointed by the Central Government, which is a statutory condition for a valid reference in disputes concerning telegraph lines, appliances or apparatus. Since that mandatory appointment requirement was not met, the reference lacked authority and the award was treated as void ab initio. The constitutional challenge to Section 7-B was not decided because the matter was resolved on the appointment defect.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Apr 2023 09:38:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=709915" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (4) TMI 406 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307324</link>
      <description>An award under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act was unsustainable because the arbitrator had not been appointed by the Central Government, which is a statutory condition for a valid reference in disputes concerning telegraph lines, appliances or apparatus. Since that mandatory appointment requirement was not met, the reference lacked authority and the award was treated as void ab initio. The constitutional challenge to Section 7-B was not decided because the matter was resolved on the appointment defect.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307324</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>