https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300059 A contract permitting sole arbitration by a person appointed by designation was upheld, because Clause 65 contemplated appointment and substitution by office rather than by personal identity; the objection that the arbitrator was a departmental officer failed. The 2015 Arbitration Amendment did not apply to proceedings commenced in 2013, as Section 26 excluded pending arbitrations absent clear party agreement, so the Section 12(5) challenge also failed. However, termination under Section 25(a) for non-filing of the statement of claim was set aside where no adequate warning had been given and justice required restoration of the arbitral opportunity. The matter was directed to proceed before a new arbitrator under the contractual mechanism. en-us Tue, 04 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Jan 2022 08:34:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300059 A contract permitting sole arbitration by a person appointed by designation was upheld, because Clause 65 contemplated appointment and substitution by office rather than by personal identity; the objection that the arbitrator was a departmental officer failed. The 2015 Arbitration Amendment did not apply to proceedings commenced in 2013, as Section 26 excluded pending arbitrations absent clear party agreement, so the Section 12(5) challenge also failed. However, termination under Section 25(a) for non-filing of the statement of claim was set aside where no adequate warning had been given and justice required restoration of the arbitral opportunity. The matter was directed to proceed before a new arbitrator under the contractual mechanism. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 04 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300059