https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159604 Where a contract for a three-member international commercial arbitration vested appointment of the Presiding Arbitrator in the President of the Indian Road Congress if the two party-appointed arbitrators failed to agree, Section 11(6) was not attracted once that contractual mechanism had operated. The Presiding Arbitrator had already been appointed in accordance with the agreed procedure, so there was no default justifying court intervention. The Supreme Court also rejected the argument that the appointing authority had to choose a legally trained arbitrator merely because the dispute raised legal questions. The appointment was therefore upheld and intervention under Section 11(6) was declined. en-us Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Jun 2014 11:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159604 Where a contract for a three-member international commercial arbitration vested appointment of the Presiding Arbitrator in the President of the Indian Road Congress if the two party-appointed arbitrators failed to agree, Section 11(6) was not attracted once that contractual mechanism had operated. The Presiding Arbitrator had already been appointed in accordance with the agreed procedure, so there was no default justifying court intervention. The Supreme Court also rejected the argument that the appointing authority had to choose a legally trained arbitrator merely because the dispute raised legal questions. The appointment was therefore upheld and intervention under Section 11(6) was declined. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159604