https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458560 The HC declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226, concluding that the petitioners had an efficacious remedy under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, specifically through Section 11 for the appointment of an arbitrator. The rule was discharged, and no order as to costs was made. en-us Thu, 25 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Nov 2024 19:52:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458560 The HC declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226, concluding that the petitioners had an efficacious remedy under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, specifically through Section 11 for the appointment of an arbitrator. The rule was discharged, and no order as to costs was made. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 25 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458560