https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310746 The HC allowed the petition for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court held that the respondent-Nigam's jurisdiction to appoint arbitrator was taken away following SC precedents in TRF Limited and Bharat Broadband Network Limited cases. The limitation objection was rejected as the petition was filed within reasonable time after rejection of arbitrator appointment. The court upheld the validity of the 3% pre-deposit clause, following established precedents. Former Chief Justice was appointed as arbitrator with condition that proceedings would commence only upon furnishing the requisite 3% security deposit by the petitioner. en-us Wed, 03 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Nov 2023 08:26:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310746 The HC allowed the petition for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court held that the respondent-Nigam's jurisdiction to appoint arbitrator was taken away following SC precedents in TRF Limited and Bharat Broadband Network Limited cases. The limitation objection was rejected as the petition was filed within reasonable time after rejection of arbitrator appointment. The court upheld the validity of the 3% pre-deposit clause, following established precedents. Former Chief Justice was appointed as arbitrator with condition that proceedings would commence only upon furnishing the requisite 3% security deposit by the petitioner. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 03 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310746