https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308242 A contractual clause allowing one party to unilaterally appoint the sole arbitrator was found inconsistent with arbitral neutrality, because an interested party cannot appoint its own decision-maker and the tribunal must satisfy nemo judex in causa sua; the appointment mechanism was therefore invalid. On limitation, the Court held that in a Section 11 referral it may conduct a limited prima facie review and refuse reference where the claims are manifestly time-barred or deadwood. The claims arose when the final bill was issued, later correspondence did not revive limitation, and no sufficient material showed duress or coercion to displace final settlement, so reference to arbitration was declined. en-us Thu, 19 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Jun 2023 08:52:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308242 A contractual clause allowing one party to unilaterally appoint the sole arbitrator was found inconsistent with arbitral neutrality, because an interested party cannot appoint its own decision-maker and the tribunal must satisfy nemo judex in causa sua; the appointment mechanism was therefore invalid. On limitation, the Court held that in a Section 11 referral it may conduct a limited prima facie review and refuse reference where the claims are manifestly time-barred or deadwood. The claims arose when the final bill was issued, later correspondence did not revive limitation, and no sufficient material showed duress or coercion to displace final settlement, so reference to arbitration was declined. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 19 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308242