https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198147 The court rejected the application for the appointment of a substitute arbitrator under section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. It upheld the respondent's right to appoint the arbitrator as per the agreement, emphasizing that the appointment of a substitute arbitrator must be in accordance with the rules applicable to the original arbitrator's appointment. The court found that the respondent had not failed to perform their function under the agreed procedure, leading to the conclusion that no cause of action had arisen to seek court intervention for the appointment of an arbitrator. en-us Tue, 22 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:33:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198147 The court rejected the application for the appointment of a substitute arbitrator under section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. It upheld the respondent's right to appoint the arbitrator as per the agreement, emphasizing that the appointment of a substitute arbitrator must be in accordance with the rules applicable to the original arbitrator's appointment. The court found that the respondent had not failed to perform their function under the agreed procedure, leading to the conclusion that no cause of action had arisen to seek court intervention for the appointment of an arbitrator. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 22 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198147