https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108861 Section 11(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 requires only that the third arbitrator be appointed by the two appointed arbitrators; it does not impose a mandatory requirement of a written appointment, a joint physical meeting, or prior notice to the parties. Consultation by correspondence or electronic communication is sufficient if the appointment is actually made and communicated. A further objection based on an alleged mistake that the presiding arbitrator had to be a non-Indian was rejected, because choosing a foreign national was treated as a lawful preference rather than a legal error. Any challenge to the tribunal's constitution could in any event be raised before the arbitral tribunal under section 16. en-us Tue, 01 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Aug 2013 12:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108861 Section 11(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 requires only that the third arbitrator be appointed by the two appointed arbitrators; it does not impose a mandatory requirement of a written appointment, a joint physical meeting, or prior notice to the parties. Consultation by correspondence or electronic communication is sufficient if the appointment is actually made and communicated. A further objection based on an alleged mistake that the presiding arbitrator had to be a non-Indian was rejected, because choosing a foreign national was treated as a lawful preference rather than a legal error. Any challenge to the tribunal's constitution could in any event be raised before the arbitral tribunal under section 16. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 01 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108861