https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347918 In a pre-amendment arbitration, the mere fact that the named sole arbitrator was an employee of one party did not by itself invalidate the appointment; interference was warranted only if the arbitrator was the dealing authority in relation to the contract, directly subordinate to the decision-maker in dispute, or otherwise gave rise to justifiable doubts about independence or impartiality. The challenge failed because those disqualifying features were not shown. The court also could not bypass the agreed appointment mechanism where the statutory challenge procedure under Section 13 had not been properly invoked and the conditions for Section 11(6) or Section 14 intervention were not satisfied. The contractual arbitration was therefore restored to proceed before the originally appointed arbitrator. en-us Tue, 12 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Sep 2017 07:32:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347918 In a pre-amendment arbitration, the mere fact that the named sole arbitrator was an employee of one party did not by itself invalidate the appointment; interference was warranted only if the arbitrator was the dealing authority in relation to the contract, directly subordinate to the decision-maker in dispute, or otherwise gave rise to justifiable doubts about independence or impartiality. The challenge failed because those disqualifying features were not shown. The court also could not bypass the agreed appointment mechanism where the statutory challenge procedure under Section 13 had not been properly invoked and the conditions for Section 11(6) or Section 14 intervention were not satisfied. The contractual arbitration was therefore restored to proceed before the originally appointed arbitrator. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 12 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347918