https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248195 An arbitral award was found vulnerable to challenge under Section 34 where the sole arbitrator was appointed unilaterally despite an arbitration clause requiring consent, and the arbitrator's communications showed alignment with one side rather than neutral case management. The petitioners' refusal to participate, after timely objection to the appointment, was not treated as abandonment of their rights. The award was also considered unsustainable because it proceeded ex parte on the claimant's assertions without adequate evidentiary support or a fair adjudicatory process. The award, and the execution proceedings based on it, were set aside. en-us Thu, 06 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Jun 2014 10:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248195 An arbitral award was found vulnerable to challenge under Section 34 where the sole arbitrator was appointed unilaterally despite an arbitration clause requiring consent, and the arbitrator's communications showed alignment with one side rather than neutral case management. The petitioners' refusal to participate, after timely objection to the appointment, was not treated as abandonment of their rights. The award was also considered unsustainable because it proceeded ex parte on the claimant's assertions without adequate evidentiary support or a fair adjudicatory process. The award, and the execution proceedings based on it, were set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 06 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248195