https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312337 An interested appointing authority cannot unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator where it has a stake in the dispute; the Perkins Eastman principle was applied to treat the defect as extending beyond a managing director to any biased or interested appointing authority. The court also held that, once such ineligibility exists, the appointed arbitrator is de jure unable to continue and the mandate is terminable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 12(5) was held to depend on the commencement of arbitration, and no express written waiver of disqualification was shown. A substitute sole arbitrator was appointed to proceed with the dispute. en-us Mon, 20 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Feb 2024 19:49:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312337 An interested appointing authority cannot unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator where it has a stake in the dispute; the Perkins Eastman principle was applied to treat the defect as extending beyond a managing director to any biased or interested appointing authority. The court also held that, once such ineligibility exists, the appointed arbitrator is de jure unable to continue and the mandate is terminable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 12(5) was held to depend on the commencement of arbitration, and no express written waiver of disqualification was shown. A substitute sole arbitrator was appointed to proceed with the dispute. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 20 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312337