https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159568 On resignation of the presiding arbitrator, substitution had to follow the original contractual appointment mechanism read with Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The two party-nominated arbitrators were required to seek consensus first, and only if that process failed could the designated contractual authority be approached; Section 11(6) was not available unless the agreed mechanism broke down. The court also could not appoint a judicial arbitrator contrary to the express arbitration clause, because party autonomy required strict adherence to the agreed procedure for selecting the presiding arbitrator. The High Court's appointment was therefore set aside and the parties were directed to proceed under the contract. en-us Mon, 25 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Jun 2014 09:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159568 On resignation of the presiding arbitrator, substitution had to follow the original contractual appointment mechanism read with Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The two party-nominated arbitrators were required to seek consensus first, and only if that process failed could the designated contractual authority be approached; Section 11(6) was not available unless the agreed mechanism broke down. The court also could not appoint a judicial arbitrator contrary to the express arbitration clause, because party autonomy required strict adherence to the agreed procedure for selecting the presiding arbitrator. The High Court's appointment was therefore set aside and the parties were directed to proceed under the contract. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 25 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159568