https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458560 Where the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides an efficacious mechanism for appointment and commencement of arbitration, the High Court should ordinarily decline to exercise writ jurisdiction to compel reference to arbitration. The court noted that, if the agreed appointment procedure fails, recourse may lie under section 11(6)(c), and section 5 limits judicial intervention in matters governed by the Act. It therefore treated the statutory remedy as sufficient and held the writ petition not maintainable, while leaving open the question whether the exchange byelaws alone governed the procedure for consideration in appropriate section 11 proceedings. 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 Where the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides an efficacious mechanism for appointment and commencement of arbitration, the High Court should ordinarily decline to exercise writ jurisdiction to compel reference to arbitration. The court noted that, if the agreed appointment procedure fails, recourse may lie under section 11(6)(c), and section 5 limits judicial intervention in matters governed by the Act. It therefore treated the statutory remedy as sufficient and held the writ petition not maintainable, while leaving open the question whether the exchange byelaws alone governed the procedure for consideration in appropriate section 11 proceedings. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 25 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458560