Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-26-2005
Reported in : AIR2006SC450; 2006(1)ALD10(SC); 2005(3)ARBLR285(SC); 2006(1)AWC538(SC); 2006(1)BomCR585; 128CompCas465(SC); (2006)2CompLJ7(SC); 2005(5)CTC302; (2006)3GLR2097; [2006(1
..... and, where the high court itself is the court referred to in that clause, to the chief justice of that high court.'section 12 requires the arbitrator to disclose the disqualification, if any. it also permits parties to challenge such arbitrator. whereas section 13 lays down procedure for challenge, sections 14 and 15 deal with special situations.chapter iv ..... jurisdictional fact does not exist, the tribunal cannot act. but a legislature may confer such power on a court of limited jurisdiction or on an inferior tribunal (vide ebrahim aboobaker v. custodian general : 1scr696 ; ujjam bai v. state of u.p., : 1scr778 ; raja anand v. state of u.p., : 1scr373 ; naresh shridhar mirazkar v. state of maharashtra, : 3scr744 ; raza textiles ltd ..... , where it serves as the basis for the case law which entrusts arbitrators with the task of applying rules of public policy (in areas such as antitrust law and the prevention of corruption), subject to subsequent review by the courts.660. - however, it is important to recognize that the competence-competence rule has a dual function. like the arbitration ..... . but such finality cannot take away the jurisdiction of high courts or the supreme court and judicial review is available against 'final' orders albeit on limited grounds. [vide somvanti v. state of punjab : 2scr774 ; neelima misra v. harvinder kaur paintal and ors. : 2scr84 ]20. but there is another important reason why the function of the chief justice under .....Tag this Judgment!