TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an application under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was maintainable for appointment of an arbitrator when the respondent had already appointed an arbitrator, and whether the validity of that appointment could be examined in proceedings under section 11(6).
Analysis: The application was filed after the respondent had appointed a sole arbitrator and the arbitrator had entered upon reference. The Court held that, in such circumstances, there was no vacancy requiring an appointment by the Chief Justice or his designate under section 11(6). The question whether the respondent's appointment was in accordance with the contractual procedure or was otherwise invalid was held to be a matter touching the arbitrator's jurisdiction. Such a challenge was held to be capable of being raised before the arbitrator under section 16 of the Act, and not for decision in a section 11(6) proceeding.
Conclusion: The application for appointment of an arbitrator was not maintainable and no appointment was made; the issue of validity of the respondent's appointment was left open for decision under section 16.
Final Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere with the existing arbitral appointment and relegated the parties to the arbitral forum for jurisdictional objections.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an arbitrator has already been appointed under the contract and has entered reference, a court acting under section 11(6) will not ordinarily decide the validity of that appointment and the challenge to jurisdiction must be raised before the arbitral tribunal under section 16.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
