<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2015 (10) TMI 2620 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190698</link>
    <description>Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 permits substitution of a resigned arbitrator by applying the same appointment rules that governed the original appointment. The term &quot;rules&quot; includes the arbitration agreement itself, so the clause must be read to see whether substitution is expressly or impliedly excluded. Where consent terms merely named an arbitrator and did not bar a vacancy being filled, and the original appointment had been made by the court under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the same appointing authority could appoint a replacement. Continuity of the arbitral process was therefore upheld, and a substitute arbitrator was validly appointable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2025 15:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=459481" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 2620 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190698</link>
      <description>Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 permits substitution of a resigned arbitrator by applying the same appointment rules that governed the original appointment. The term &quot;rules&quot; includes the arbitration agreement itself, so the clause must be read to see whether substitution is expressly or impliedly excluded. Where consent terms merely named an arbitrator and did not bar a vacancy being filled, and the original appointment had been made by the court under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the same appointing authority could appoint a replacement. Continuity of the arbitral process was therefore upheld, and a substitute arbitrator was validly appointable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190698</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>