https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459247 A contractual or regulatory arbitration clause may validly impose a shorter limitation period with statutory force, and Section 28 of the Contract Act does not necessarily invalidate such a stipulation; on the facts, claims raised well after the six-month period were held time-barred. The arbitral tribunal's view that the disputed transfer of 4,114 shares was an off-market transaction outside the NSE arbitration framework was treated as a plausible interpretation of the bye-laws, and no patent error was found to justify interference under Section 34. The challenge to the award therefore failed. en-us Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Dec 2024 14:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459247 A contractual or regulatory arbitration clause may validly impose a shorter limitation period with statutory force, and Section 28 of the Contract Act does not necessarily invalidate such a stipulation; on the facts, claims raised well after the six-month period were held time-barred. The arbitral tribunal's view that the disputed transfer of 4,114 shares was an off-market transaction outside the NSE arbitration framework was treated as a plausible interpretation of the bye-laws, and no patent error was found to justify interference under Section 34. The challenge to the award therefore failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459247