https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303535 The SC ruled that Respondent No. 1 forfeited its right to appoint an arbitrator by failing to act before the Appellant's application under Section 11(6). Any subsequent appointment by Respondent No. 1 during proceedings was deemed inconsequential. The Chief Justice of the HC was directed to appoint an independent arbitrator. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the previous order, and the matter was remanded to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad HC for reconsideration, with no costs awarded. en-us Fri, 22 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Mar 2024 09:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303535 The SC ruled that Respondent No. 1 forfeited its right to appoint an arbitrator by failing to act before the Appellant's application under Section 11(6). Any subsequent appointment by Respondent No. 1 during proceedings was deemed inconsequential. The Chief Justice of the HC was directed to appoint an independent arbitrator. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the previous order, and the matter was remanded to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad HC for reconsideration, with no costs awarded. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 22 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303535