https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127625 An arbitration agreement naming the Vice Chairman of the Ghaziabad Development Authority as sole arbitrator had to be construed strictly according to its clear substance. The Court held that uncertain or detached words could not override the named arbitrator, and that Section 20(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 permitted appointment of another arbitrator only where the named arbitrator himself refused or failed to act after reference. Because the dispute had not been referred to the named arbitrator, no such failure could be inferred, and the Court could not appoint an arbitrator of its own choice; the dispute had to be referred to the named sole arbitrator. en-us Fri, 31 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:53:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127625 An arbitration agreement naming the Vice Chairman of the Ghaziabad Development Authority as sole arbitrator had to be construed strictly according to its clear substance. The Court held that uncertain or detached words could not override the named arbitrator, and that Section 20(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 permitted appointment of another arbitrator only where the named arbitrator himself refused or failed to act after reference. Because the dispute had not been referred to the named arbitrator, no such failure could be inferred, and the Court could not appoint an arbitrator of its own choice; the dispute had to be referred to the named sole arbitrator. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 31 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127625