https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108558 A civil revision challenged an arbitral appointment on two grounds: that the Civil Judge, Senior Division lacked power to appoint an arbitrator under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and that the appointee had prior associations with the respondent group raising apprehension of bias. After the revision was filed, the arbitrator voluntarily stepped down to avoid further proceedings, stating the disclosed facts did not disqualify him but preferring withdrawal in the interests of the process. The court commended that course as consistent with the principle that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done, and the revision was treated as infructuous and withdrawn. en-us Mon, 21 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Apr 2012 16:00:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108558 A civil revision challenged an arbitral appointment on two grounds: that the Civil Judge, Senior Division lacked power to appoint an arbitrator under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and that the appointee had prior associations with the respondent group raising apprehension of bias. After the revision was filed, the arbitrator voluntarily stepped down to avoid further proceedings, stating the disclosed facts did not disqualify him but preferring withdrawal in the interests of the process. The court commended that course as consistent with the principle that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done, and the revision was treated as infructuous and withdrawn. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 21 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108558