<?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>1992 (1) TMI 364 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310744</link>
    <description>The HC set aside the appointment of a sole arbitrator by the civil court and invalidated the award made by the sole arbitrator. The court directed the trial court to refer the dispute back to the originally designated panel of three arbitrators as per the agreement. The petitioner-State&#039;s participation in the proceedings before the sole arbitrator was deemed irrelevant, and the appeal was allowed without costs, ensuring a fresh arbitration process with the designated officials.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Nov 2023 15:51:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=731858" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (1) TMI 364 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310744</link>
      <description>The HC set aside the appointment of a sole arbitrator by the civil court and invalidated the award made by the sole arbitrator. The court directed the trial court to refer the dispute back to the originally designated panel of three arbitrators as per the agreement. The petitioner-State&#039;s participation in the proceedings before the sole arbitrator was deemed irrelevant, and the appeal was allowed without costs, ensuring a fresh arbitration process with the designated officials.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310744</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>