https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297783 An application for appointment of arbitrator filed after 23 October 2015 was held to fall under the amended Section 11 regime, so the earlier arbitration notice did not keep the pre-amendment procedure alive. The court also held that such a Section 11 application is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, with Sections 5 and 14 available where earlier proceedings were prosecuted bona fide and with due diligence; the delay was condoned on that basis. The underlying agreement was treated as a commercial transaction, so the dispute fell within commercial jurisdiction and the application remained maintainable. The arbitral tribunal was then constituted by appointing nominee arbitrators. en-us Thu, 22 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Sep 2021 06:16:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297783 An application for appointment of arbitrator filed after 23 October 2015 was held to fall under the amended Section 11 regime, so the earlier arbitration notice did not keep the pre-amendment procedure alive. The court also held that such a Section 11 application is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, with Sections 5 and 14 available where earlier proceedings were prosecuted bona fide and with due diligence; the delay was condoned on that basis. The underlying agreement was treated as a commercial transaction, so the dispute fell within commercial jurisdiction and the application remained maintainable. The arbitral tribunal was then constituted by appointing nominee arbitrators. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 22 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297783