https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312703 Separate dealership and financing agreements containing distinct arbitration clauses must be honoured according to their own dispute-resolution mechanisms, and a court exercising Section 11(6) power cannot recast the contractual bargain by appointing a common arbitrator for overlapping disputes. Where the clauses provide different parties, forums, and tribunal-constitution methods, a composite reference is not justified merely because the disputes may overlap. An invocation notice that is unspecific or inconsistent with the agreed procedure is also ineffective. The stated result is that requests for a common arbitrator will not be sustained when they conflict with the arbitration framework chosen in the contracts. en-us Tue, 09 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Mar 2024 09:16:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312703 Separate dealership and financing agreements containing distinct arbitration clauses must be honoured according to their own dispute-resolution mechanisms, and a court exercising Section 11(6) power cannot recast the contractual bargain by appointing a common arbitrator for overlapping disputes. Where the clauses provide different parties, forums, and tribunal-constitution methods, a composite reference is not justified merely because the disputes may overlap. An invocation notice that is unspecific or inconsistent with the agreed procedure is also ineffective. The stated result is that requests for a common arbitrator will not be sustained when they conflict with the arbitration framework chosen in the contracts. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 09 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312703