https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434222 Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 creates ineligibility only where the arbitrator falls within a Seventh Schedule disqualification that has a direct nexus with a party or the dispute. Prior representation of an advocate or law firm in unrelated matters, without a proximate connection to the litigant or subject matter, does not by itself render a sole arbitrator de jure ineligible or justify termination of mandate. Where the complaint is instead one of non-disclosure or circumstances giving rise to justifiable doubts, the proper route is the Section 13 challenge procedure, not a Section 14(2) petition. On the stated grounds, the mandate was not liable to be terminated and the proceedings were not required to be stayed. en-us Tue, 17 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 19 Feb 2023 14:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434222 Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 creates ineligibility only where the arbitrator falls within a Seventh Schedule disqualification that has a direct nexus with a party or the dispute. Prior representation of an advocate or law firm in unrelated matters, without a proximate connection to the litigant or subject matter, does not by itself render a sole arbitrator de jure ineligible or justify termination of mandate. Where the complaint is instead one of non-disclosure or circumstances giving rise to justifiable doubts, the proper route is the Section 13 challenge procedure, not a Section 14(2) petition. On the stated grounds, the mandate was not liable to be terminated and the proceedings were not required to be stayed. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 17 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434222