A party interested in the dispute cannot unilaterally appoint the sole arbitrator.

The Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) awarded the petitioner a contract to conduct refresher courses for Energy Auditors and Energy Managers.

The petitioner alleged that BEE’s failure to provide a functional portal, candidate database and related approvals impeded performance; it claimed to have trained 636 candidates and disputed deductions made from its invoice, while BEE alleged delay and non-performance

The parties’ Service Agreement provided for disputes to be resolved by a sole arbitrator appointed by BEE

After the petitioner invoked arbitration, BEE did not agree to an independent appointment. The petitioner then applied under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Whether the clause providing for a sole arbitrator appointed by BEE could be acted upon, and whether the Court could appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) after that appointment mechanism failed

Whether the parties’ disputes concerning performance, deductions and amounts claimed should be examined at the Section 11 stage or left to the arbitral tribunal

Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 permits court appointment where the agreed appointment procedure has failed.

Under *TRF Ltd. v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd.*, (2017) 8 SCC 377, and *Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd.*, (2020) 20 SCC 760, a party interested in the dispute cannot unilaterally appoint the sole arbitrator, nor can an ineligible person nominate another arbitrator.

The Constitution Bench decision in *Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV)*, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3219, affirmed that unilateral appointment of a sole arbitrator is inconsistent with equal treatment of parties under Section 18.

The appointment mechanism’s unenforceability does not invalidate the arbitration agreement itself.

At the Section 11 stage, the court’s enquiry is narrow and principally concerns the existence of an arbitration agreement; merits disputes are for the arbitral tribunal (*In Re: Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899*, (2024) 6 SCC 1; *SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning*, (2024) 11 SCC 41; *NTPC Ltd. v. SPML Infra Ltd.*, (2023) 9 SCC 385)

The arbitration agreement’s existence and validity were undisputed, and New Delhi was the agreed seat

Because Clause 11.4.2 allowed BEE to appoint the sole arbitrator, its appointment mechanism was unenforceable in light of the principles against unilateral appointment.

The parties’ agreement to arbitrate nevertheless remained effective, and the failure of the appointment procedure empowered the Court to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6)

The competing allegations about delay, performance and deductions concerned the merits and were therefore left to the tribunal rather than determined at the appointment stage

The arbitration is to proceed under the aegis and rules of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), subject to the parties furnishing disclosures under Section 12.

BEE may raise preliminary objections on arbitrability or jurisdiction before the arbitrator; all claims, counterclaims and merits contentions were left open