https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329453 Under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a court may refuse appointment only if the claim is plainly and patently dead on the face of the record. Where limitation depends on disputed bills, certificates, payments, and surrounding documents, the issue should be decided by the arbitral forum rather than at the threshold. On the facts, the payment was described as relating only to the undisputed part of the final bill, so further claims were not clearly extinguished. The refusal to appoint an arbitrator was therefore unsustainable, the appeals were allowed, and the matter was remitted for consequential steps toward appointment. en-us Wed, 29 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Oct 2017 14:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329453 Under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a court may refuse appointment only if the claim is plainly and patently dead on the face of the record. Where limitation depends on disputed bills, certificates, payments, and surrounding documents, the issue should be decided by the arbitral forum rather than at the threshold. On the facts, the payment was described as relating only to the undisputed part of the final bill, so further claims were not clearly extinguished. The refusal to appoint an arbitrator was therefore unsustainable, the appeals were allowed, and the matter was remitted for consequential steps toward appointment. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 29 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329453