https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458502 A stock exchange bye-law that required disputes to be referred to arbitration within six months was treated as a contractual time restriction, not a statutory limitation regime, because the parent securities law did not authorise the exchange to create a separate limitation period for arbitration. Once the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applied the Limitation Act through Section 43, the contractual curtailment of time was void to that extent under Section 28 of the Contract Act. The document also notes that parties who had agreed to arbitration could not revive earlier civil suits merely because the arbitral reference was said to be time-barred; the agreed dispute-resolution mechanism remained binding. en-us Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Nov 2024 17:55:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458502 A stock exchange bye-law that required disputes to be referred to arbitration within six months was treated as a contractual time restriction, not a statutory limitation regime, because the parent securities law did not authorise the exchange to create a separate limitation period for arbitration. Once the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applied the Limitation Act through Section 43, the contractual curtailment of time was void to that extent under Section 28 of the Contract Act. The document also notes that parties who had agreed to arbitration could not revive earlier civil suits merely because the arbitral reference was said to be time-barred; the agreed dispute-resolution mechanism remained binding. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458502