https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105465 An arbitration clause providing for three arbitrators, with one nominated by each party and the third designated as Chairman, was construed as falling under section 10(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Court distinguished section 10(1), which treats a third appointee as an umpire where the agreement merely contemplates three arbitrators in the prescribed manner. Here, the clause contemplated a three-member tribunal acting as a body with majority decision-making, so the third appointee was a Chairman and not an umpire. The tribunal was therefore validly constituted on that construction. en-us Wed, 11 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Aug 2013 12:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105465 An arbitration clause providing for three arbitrators, with one nominated by each party and the third designated as Chairman, was construed as falling under section 10(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Court distinguished section 10(1), which treats a third appointee as an umpire where the agreement merely contemplates three arbitrators in the prescribed manner. Here, the clause contemplated a three-member tribunal acting as a body with majority decision-making, so the third appointee was a Chairman and not an umpire. The tribunal was therefore validly constituted on that construction. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 11 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105465