https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771571 A unilateral appointment of a sole arbitrator by the Managing Director of one party, where the clause otherwise required mutual consent and failed consensus, was treated as inconsistent with party autonomy, impartiality and independence in arbitral appointments. Because the appointing authority was an interested party, the arbitrator was held de jure incapable of functioning, and Section 14(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was attracted. The sole arbitrator's mandate was therefore terminated, and the challenge to the appointment succeeded, while the underlying claims were left open for decision in accordance with law. en-us Fri, 16 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 May 2025 08:26:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771571 A unilateral appointment of a sole arbitrator by the Managing Director of one party, where the clause otherwise required mutual consent and failed consensus, was treated as inconsistent with party autonomy, impartiality and independence in arbitral appointments. Because the appointing authority was an interested party, the arbitrator was held de jure incapable of functioning, and Section 14(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was attracted. The sole arbitrator's mandate was therefore terminated, and the challenge to the appointment succeeded, while the underlying claims were left open for decision in accordance with law. Case-Laws IBC Fri, 16 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771571