https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104892 Under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the opposite party does not forfeit its right to appoint an arbitrator merely because the appointment is made more than 30 days after the demand, so long as it is made before the section 11 application is filed; the appointment remained valid. The arbitration clause giving the lessor power to nominate the sole arbitrator did not require the appellant's prior consent or concurrence, because the clause contained no such condition and nomination was treated as sufficient appointment for contractual purposes. The agreed procedure was therefore not shown to have failed, and the section 11 request was rejected. en-us Wed, 18 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Nov 2013 09:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104892 Under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the opposite party does not forfeit its right to appoint an arbitrator merely because the appointment is made more than 30 days after the demand, so long as it is made before the section 11 application is filed; the appointment remained valid. The arbitration clause giving the lessor power to nominate the sole arbitrator did not require the appellant's prior consent or concurrence, because the clause contained no such condition and nomination was treated as sufficient appointment for contractual purposes. The agreed procedure was therefore not shown to have failed, and the section 11 request was rejected. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 18 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104892