<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2010 (5) TMI 660 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214812</link>
    <description>Under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Court may appoint an independent sole arbitrator where the named arbitrator gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of lack of independence or impartiality. Although a named employee-arbitrator is not automatically disqualified merely because of his connection with a party, the surrounding circumstances here showed a real possibility that the Managing Director of the respondent could not decide the dispute independently. The arbitration clause in the purchase order was treated as a valid arbitration agreement, and an independent arbitral forum was secured by appointing an arbitrator other than the respondent&#039;s Managing Director.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=188203" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (5) TMI 660 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214812</link>
      <description>Under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Court may appoint an independent sole arbitrator where the named arbitrator gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of lack of independence or impartiality. Although a named employee-arbitrator is not automatically disqualified merely because of his connection with a party, the surrounding circumstances here showed a real possibility that the Managing Director of the respondent could not decide the dispute independently. The arbitration clause in the purchase order was treated as a valid arbitration agreement, and an independent arbitral forum was secured by appointing an arbitrator other than the respondent&#039;s Managing Director.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214812</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>