<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Arbitration joinder and appeal maintainability: tribunal&#039;s protective order allowing trustee participation was upheld.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98741</link>
    <description>Maintainability of an appeal depended on the power the tribunal purported to exercise, so a challenge to an order moved and dealt with under Section 17 was examinable under Section 37(2)(b), though the order was not a routine joinder order. On merits, the tribunal correctly preserved the parties&#039; positions by allowing the same person already connected to the arbitration to participate also as trustee, pending the unresolved issue whether he had ceased to be a partner. The Court distinguished legal ownership from beneficial enjoyment, noted that a trust is not a separate legal entity, and found no perversity or error of law. The petition was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2026 07:52:35 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2026 07:52:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=896437" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Arbitration joinder and appeal maintainability: tribunal&#039;s protective order allowing trustee participation was upheld.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98741</link>
      <description>Maintainability of an appeal depended on the power the tribunal purported to exercise, so a challenge to an order moved and dealt with under Section 17 was examinable under Section 37(2)(b), though the order was not a routine joinder order. On merits, the tribunal correctly preserved the parties&#039; positions by allowing the same person already connected to the arbitration to participate also as trustee, pending the unresolved issue whether he had ceased to be a partner. The Court distinguished legal ownership from beneficial enjoyment, noted that a trust is not a separate legal entity, and found no perversity or error of law. The petition was rejected.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2026 07:52:35 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98741</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>