https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156999 Under a contractual arbitration clause, unilateral appointment by a contractor was held unjustified where the appointing authority had already sent and reiterated a panel of three names for the related contracts, including the dispute contract, so there was no failure to act requiring a fresh panel. A jurisdictional objection to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal could not be raised for the first time under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where no objection had been taken before the tribunal under Section 16; a party who receives notice must ordinarily raise the issue at the threshold or show strong reasons for not doing so. The contractor's challenge therefore failed, and the award in favour of the appellant was restored. en-us Fri, 11 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Jun 2014 11:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156999 Under a contractual arbitration clause, unilateral appointment by a contractor was held unjustified where the appointing authority had already sent and reiterated a panel of three names for the related contracts, including the dispute contract, so there was no failure to act requiring a fresh panel. A jurisdictional objection to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal could not be raised for the first time under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where no objection had been taken before the tribunal under Section 16; a party who receives notice must ordinarily raise the issue at the threshold or show strong reasons for not doing so. The contractor's challenge therefore failed, and the award in favour of the appellant was restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 11 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156999