https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778488 HC held the presiding arbitrator was de jure ineligible for appointment for failing to make disclosures required under Section 12(1) A&C Act, 1996, and that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the petitioner's Section 12 challenge. Reliance on SC jurisprudence distinguished prior involvement and disclosure obligations, but the arbitrator's prior adjudicatory role vis-à-vis the opposing party warranted setting aside. The impugned arbitral award dated 21.08.2024 is quashed and set aside; the petition is allowed and disposed. en-us Thu, 11 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Sep 2025 13:26:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778488 HC held the presiding arbitrator was de jure ineligible for appointment for failing to make disclosures required under Section 12(1) A&C Act, 1996, and that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the petitioner's Section 12 challenge. Reliance on SC jurisprudence distinguished prior involvement and disclosure obligations, but the arbitrator's prior adjudicatory role vis-à-vis the opposing party warranted setting aside. The impugned arbitral award dated 21.08.2024 is quashed and set aside; the petition is allowed and disposed. Case-Laws IBC Thu, 11 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778488