5. The arbitrator is a manager, director or part of the management, or has a similar controlling influence, in an affiliate of one of the parties if the affiliate is directly involved in the matters in dispute in the arbitration.” Whether such ineligible person could himself appoint another arbitrator was only made clear by this Court's judgment in TRF Ltd. on 3.7.2017, this Court holding that an appointment made by an ineligible person is itself void ab initio. Thus, it was only on 3.7.2017, that it became clear beyond doubt that the appointment of Shri Khan would be void ab initio. Since such appointment goes to “ eligibility” i.e. to the root of the matter, it is obvious that Shri Khan's appointment would be void. There is no doubt in this case that disputes arose only after the introduction of Section 12(5) into the statute book, and Shri Khan was appointed long after 23.10.2015. The judgment in TRF Ltd. nowhere states that it will apply only prospectively i.e. the appointments that have been made of persons such as Shri Khan would be valid if made before the date of the judgment. Section 26 of the Amendment Act, 2015 makes it clear that the Amendment Act, 2015 shall apply in relation to arbitral proceedings commenced on or after 23.10.2015. Indeed, the judgment itself set aside the order appointing the arbitrator, which was an order dated 27.1.2016, by which the Managing Director of the respondent nominated a former Judge of this Court as sole arbitrator in terms of Clause 33(d) of the purchase order dated 10.5.2014. It will be noticed that the facts in the present case are somewhat similar. The APO itself is of the year 2014, whereas the appointment by the Managing Director is after the Amendment Act, 2015, just as in TRF Ltd. Considering that the appointment in TRF Ltd. of a retired Judge of this Court
