https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106622 Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was construed as a gap-filling mechanism to secure prompt constitution of the arbitral tribunal, with the Chief Justice or designate performing only a limited nomination function where statutory preconditions exist. The Court held that this role does not involve adjudication of disputed claims or tribunal competence, and that objections to independence, impartiality and jurisdiction are to be raised under the Act's challenge and competence provisions. On that basis, the nomination order was treated as administrative and not amenable to special leave jurisdiction under article 136. The Court also held that any scheme under section 11 cannot require a show-cause notice beyond the statute; notice may only inform the other party and allow participation if desired. en-us Wed, 30 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Dec 2025 13:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106622 Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was construed as a gap-filling mechanism to secure prompt constitution of the arbitral tribunal, with the Chief Justice or designate performing only a limited nomination function where statutory preconditions exist. The Court held that this role does not involve adjudication of disputed claims or tribunal competence, and that objections to independence, impartiality and jurisdiction are to be raised under the Act's challenge and competence provisions. On that basis, the nomination order was treated as administrative and not amenable to special leave jurisdiction under article 136. The Court also held that any scheme under section 11 cannot require a show-cause notice beyond the statute; notice may only inform the other party and allow participation if desired. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 30 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106622