https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458791 An order appointing an arbitrator under Section 11 was not recalled merely because notice was sent to the company's old address, where the record showed service at the last-known address and there was no palpable error in the earlier order. The Court held that compliance with change-of-registered-office formalities did not by itself show that the respondent was bound to discover the updated address immediately, and the earlier finding of due service and non-appearance carried a presumption of correctness. Issues touching the merits of the underlying dispute were left for the arbitrator. The recall application was rejected and the appointment order was maintained. en-us Thu, 18 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Nov 2024 18:59:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458791 An order appointing an arbitrator under Section 11 was not recalled merely because notice was sent to the company's old address, where the record showed service at the last-known address and there was no palpable error in the earlier order. The Court held that compliance with change-of-registered-office formalities did not by itself show that the respondent was bound to discover the updated address immediately, and the earlier finding of due service and non-appearance carried a presumption of correctness. Issues touching the merits of the underlying dispute were left for the arbitrator. The recall application was rejected and the appointment order was maintained. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 18 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458791