https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264198 The SC held that Clause 22.3 required appointment of a sole arbitrator by mutual consent and that a substitute arbitrator must be appointed under the same rules applicable to the original arbitrator, as mandated by Section 15(2) of the Act. The petitioner failed to give notice and seek a mutual appointment before invoking Section 11(6), rendering the application premature. The petition was not entertained, and the petitioner was left free to pursue the prescribed statutory procedure and remedies thereafter. en-us Fri, 04 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Sep 2025 10:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264198 The SC held that Clause 22.3 required appointment of a sole arbitrator by mutual consent and that a substitute arbitrator must be appointed under the same rules applicable to the original arbitrator, as mandated by Section 15(2) of the Act. The petitioner failed to give notice and seek a mutual appointment before invoking Section 11(6), rendering the application premature. The petition was not entertained, and the petitioner was left free to pursue the prescribed statutory procedure and remedies thereafter. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 04 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264198