https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109659 An order appointing an arbitrator under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was treated as administrative and therefore amenable to review under Article 226, but writ interference was ordinarily limited because the Act provides objections before the arbitral forum under sections 12, 13 and 16. On the facts, challenges to the arbitration agreement, the age of the dispute, and the applicability of the Act could be raised before the Arbitrator, so the writ court should not have entertained the petition. The appeals failed and the parties were left to pursue their contentions before the appointed Arbitrator. en-us Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Jan 2014 14:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109659 An order appointing an arbitrator under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was treated as administrative and therefore amenable to review under Article 226, but writ interference was ordinarily limited because the Act provides objections before the arbitral forum under sections 12, 13 and 16. On the facts, challenges to the arbitration agreement, the age of the dispute, and the applicability of the Act could be raised before the Arbitrator, so the writ court should not have entertained the petition. The appeals failed and the parties were left to pursue their contentions before the appointed Arbitrator. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109659