https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160494 In a Section 11(6) arbitration context, expiry of 30 days from the demand did not by itself extinguish the respondent's contractual right to appoint an arbitrator because no statutory 30-day limit applies to Section 11(6), and the right subsists until the other party moves the court. An appointment made before filing the Section 11 application was therefore treated as valid. The Court also declined to replace the agreed mechanism with an independent arbitrator merely on apprehended bias, since the arbitration clause authorised nomination of the respondent's officer. Any challenge to independence, impartiality, bias, or misconduct was left to the arbitral process and, if necessary, Section 34 proceedings. en-us Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Jun 2014 16:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160494 In a Section 11(6) arbitration context, expiry of 30 days from the demand did not by itself extinguish the respondent's contractual right to appoint an arbitrator because no statutory 30-day limit applies to Section 11(6), and the right subsists until the other party moves the court. An appointment made before filing the Section 11 application was therefore treated as valid. The Court also declined to replace the agreed mechanism with an independent arbitrator merely on apprehended bias, since the arbitration clause authorised nomination of the respondent's officer. Any challenge to independence, impartiality, bias, or misconduct was left to the arbitral process and, if necessary, Section 34 proceedings. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160494