https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254728 A reasonable construction of the arbitration clause showed that the named institution functioned as the agreed appointing mechanism, not as a body requiring court intervention under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Because the appointment request had already been made, a sole arbitrator had been appointed, and the petitioner had participated in the arbitral process, the Court could not use section 11(6) to reassess the institutional appointment or the partial award already rendered. The application was therefore not maintainable on the facts and was liable to be dismissed. en-us Tue, 16 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Dec 2014 21:31:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254728 A reasonable construction of the arbitration clause showed that the named institution functioned as the agreed appointing mechanism, not as a body requiring court intervention under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Because the appointment request had already been made, a sole arbitrator had been appointed, and the petitioner had participated in the arbitral process, the Court could not use section 11(6) to reassess the institutional appointment or the partial award already rendered. The application was therefore not maintainable on the facts and was liable to be dismissed. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 16 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254728