https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310746 A contractual clause allowing the Managing Director or its nominee to appoint the arbitrator could not be enforced where the appointing authority had an interest in the dispute, because neutrality and independence in arbitration required independent appointment through the Court. The challenge on limitation failed, as the request for arbitration was made within a reasonable time after the dispute remained unresolved. The 3% pre-deposit condition was upheld as a permissible contractual safeguard designed to deter frivolous claims, rather than an arbitrary restraint on arbitration. 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 A contractual clause allowing the Managing Director or its nominee to appoint the arbitrator could not be enforced where the appointing authority had an interest in the dispute, because neutrality and independence in arbitration required independent appointment through the Court. The challenge on limitation failed, as the request for arbitration was made within a reasonable time after the dispute remained unresolved. The 3% pre-deposit condition was upheld as a permissible contractual safeguard designed to deter frivolous claims, rather than an arbitrary restraint on arbitration. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 03 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310746