Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 2002 (10) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2002 (10) TMI 707 - SUPREME COURTWhether the appointment of the third arbitrator should necessarily be done by the two appointed arbitrators by sitting together and in writing? Are they required to consult the parties too, while doing so, or at least, to put the parties on previous notice? Whether it can be said that Mr. K.B. Verma while agreeing for appointment of Mr. Williams as third arbitrator was under a mistake as to Indian law, and if so, then its effect? Held that:- Held that:- Appeal dismissed. It is not necessary within the meaning of section 11(3) that the presiding arbitrator must be appointed by the two appointed arbitrators in writing nor it is necessary that the two appointed arbitrators must necessarily sit at one place, deliberate jointly and take a decision in the presence of each other in regard to the appointment of the presiding arbitrator. It is enough if they have actually consulted or conferred with each other and if both or any of them communicates to the parties the appointment of the presiding arbitrator as having taken place by the joint deliberation of the two. It is clearly spelled out from the correspondence between the two arbitrators reproduced hereinabove that the two arbitrators had agreed on principle that the third arbitrator shall be of a nationality different from the one to which either of the parties belongs.
|