https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104866 Under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Chief Justice or nominee performs an administrative function limited to removing obstacles to constitution of the arbitral tribunal; it does not involve adjudication of disputes on the merits. The Court linked this limited role to the Act's scheme of minimal court intervention, with issues such as arbitrator independence, qualifications, validity of the arbitration agreement, and jurisdiction remaining open for the arbitral process under sections 13 and 16. An order appointing an arbitrator is therefore not amenable to Article 136, and if appointment is refused, the appropriate remedy is a writ of mandamus to compel appointment. en-us Mon, 21 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Jul 2014 15:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104866 Under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Chief Justice or nominee performs an administrative function limited to removing obstacles to constitution of the arbitral tribunal; it does not involve adjudication of disputes on the merits. The Court linked this limited role to the Act's scheme of minimal court intervention, with issues such as arbitrator independence, qualifications, validity of the arbitration agreement, and jurisdiction remaining open for the arbitral process under sections 13 and 16. An order appointing an arbitrator is therefore not amenable to Article 136, and if appointment is refused, the appropriate remedy is a writ of mandamus to compel appointment. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 21 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104866