https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198147 Where the arbitration agreement vested the respondent's board with power to appoint the sole arbitrator, a later substitute appointment made under that contractual mechanism remained valid after the initially named arbitrator did not enter upon the reference. Section 15(2) required substitution to follow the rules applicable to the original appointment, and that expression included the parties' agreed procedure. Because there was no failure to act under the agreed clause, the Court's power under Section 11(6) was not triggered and the Section 11 petition was not maintainable. 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 Where the arbitration agreement vested the respondent's board with power to appoint the sole arbitrator, a later substitute appointment made under that contractual mechanism remained valid after the initially named arbitrator did not enter upon the reference. Section 15(2) required substitution to follow the rules applicable to the original appointment, and that expression included the parties' agreed procedure. Because there was no failure to act under the agreed clause, the Court's power under Section 11(6) was not triggered and the Section 11 petition was not maintainable. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 22 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198147