https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374211 Where parties have contractually chosen the Managing Director or his nominee as arbitrator, courts should ordinarily respect that appointment mechanism unless a legally sustainable ground of bias, ineligibility or failure of mandate is shown. The text states that participation in the proceedings and acceptance of the process may estop a party from later seeking an independent arbitrator on that basis. It also says Section 12(5) of the 2015 amendment was treated as not retrospectively invalidating arbitral proceedings that had already commenced before the amendment, and that delay alone is not enough to displace the agreed arbitral forum without recourse to the proper statutory remedy. en-us Wed, 23 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Jan 2019 07:23:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374211 Where parties have contractually chosen the Managing Director or his nominee as arbitrator, courts should ordinarily respect that appointment mechanism unless a legally sustainable ground of bias, ineligibility or failure of mandate is shown. The text states that participation in the proceedings and acceptance of the process may estop a party from later seeking an independent arbitrator on that basis. It also says Section 12(5) of the 2015 amendment was treated as not retrospectively invalidating arbitral proceedings that had already commenced before the amendment, and that delay alone is not enough to displace the agreed arbitral forum without recourse to the proper statutory remedy. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 23 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374211