https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197771 In Section 11 proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, objections that the underlying agreement was vitiated by fraud, forgery or cheating do not by themselves justify refusal to appoint an arbitrator. The HC held that issues concerning the arbitrator's jurisdiction and the legal effect of such allegations are matters for the arbitral tribunal to determine under Section 16. Because the challenge could be raised before the tribunal, it was not a ground to decline appointment at the referral stage. The jurisdictional and fraud-based objections were therefore rejected, and appointment of the sole arbitrator was directed. en-us Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Jan 2018 15:32:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197771 In Section 11 proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, objections that the underlying agreement was vitiated by fraud, forgery or cheating do not by themselves justify refusal to appoint an arbitrator. The HC held that issues concerning the arbitrator's jurisdiction and the legal effect of such allegations are matters for the arbitral tribunal to determine under Section 16. Because the challenge could be raised before the tribunal, it was not a ground to decline appointment at the referral stage. The jurisdictional and fraud-based objections were therefore rejected, and appointment of the sole arbitrator was directed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197771