https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128780 Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was treated as conferring a judicial function on the Chief Justice or a designated Judge, requiring determination of threshold jurisdictional facts such as the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, party status, maintainability, and whether the dispute is live or barred. The function could not be assigned to a District Judge or non-judicial body. The majority further held that notice and an opportunity of hearing are required before appointing an arbitrator, since the decision affects rights and involves adjudication on appointment conditions. The arbitral tribunal's competence under Section 16 does not reopen matters conclusively decided at the Section 11 stage. en-us Wed, 26 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Jul 2025 17:07:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128780 Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was treated as conferring a judicial function on the Chief Justice or a designated Judge, requiring determination of threshold jurisdictional facts such as the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, party status, maintainability, and whether the dispute is live or barred. The function could not be assigned to a District Judge or non-judicial body. The majority further held that notice and an opportunity of hearing are required before appointing an arbitrator, since the decision affects rights and involves adjudication on appointment conditions. The arbitral tribunal's competence under Section 16 does not reopen matters conclusively decided at the Section 11 stage. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 26 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128780