https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310708 Contractual appointment procedure for a sole arbitrator remained effective where the parties had agreed a specific nomination mechanism in the purchase order. Recourse to court under Section 11(5) was held unavailable absent the statutory preconditions for court intervention, and the challenge on maintainability therefore failed. The managing director's ineligibility to act as arbitrator did not, by itself, extinguish his contractual power to nominate an independent arbitrator. Objections based on the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Schedules were rejected, with the court treating tribunal-constitution objections as matters capable of being raised before the arbitral tribunal itself. The nominated arbitrator's appointment was upheld. en-us Tue, 19 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Nov 2023 08:51:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310708 Contractual appointment procedure for a sole arbitrator remained effective where the parties had agreed a specific nomination mechanism in the purchase order. Recourse to court under Section 11(5) was held unavailable absent the statutory preconditions for court intervention, and the challenge on maintainability therefore failed. The managing director's ineligibility to act as arbitrator did not, by itself, extinguish his contractual power to nominate an independent arbitrator. Objections based on the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Schedules were rejected, with the court treating tribunal-constitution objections as matters capable of being raised before the arbitral tribunal itself. The nominated arbitrator's appointment was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 19 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310708