https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159550 A valid arbitration clause naming an employee of one party as arbitrator is not invalid merely for want of independence or impartiality; bias must be shown by specific circumstances creating a justifiable doubt. The court dealing with appointment under section 11(6) should ordinarily give effect to the agreed contractual mechanism and the named arbitrator, and should depart from it only where the arbitrator is unavailable or recorded material establishes a legitimate concern about independence or impartiality. A request for appointment must also follow the contractual procedure, and a party that bypasses the designated appointment route does not validly invoke the clause. The stated position is that the agreed mechanism, including appointment of the Director (Marketing), governs. en-us Mon, 24 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Jun 2014 10:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159550 A valid arbitration clause naming an employee of one party as arbitrator is not invalid merely for want of independence or impartiality; bias must be shown by specific circumstances creating a justifiable doubt. The court dealing with appointment under section 11(6) should ordinarily give effect to the agreed contractual mechanism and the named arbitrator, and should depart from it only where the arbitrator is unavailable or recorded material establishes a legitimate concern about independence or impartiality. A request for appointment must also follow the contractual procedure, and a party that bypasses the designated appointment route does not validly invoke the clause. The stated position is that the agreed mechanism, including appointment of the Director (Marketing), governs. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 24 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159550