A party’s unilateral power to appoint a sole arbitrator violates equal treatment of parties.

The petitioner sought appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“A&C Act”) in disputes arising from an Agreement for Purchase of Machinery effective from 26 August 2023 and two related purchase orders.

The petitioner alleged delayed delivery, damage and missing components, and that the machine failed to achieve its assured output; it sought return of the machine and moulds and a refund.

After the parties failed to agree on an arbitrator following the petitioner’s Section 21 notice, the petitioner filed the present petition.

The respondent disputed the petitioner’s claims but acknowledged that disputes could be resolved through arbitration and reserved its right to bring counterclaims.

1. Whether the Court should appoint a sole arbitrator where the arbitration agreement existed, arbitration had been invoked, and the parties had not agreed on an appointment.

2. Whether disputes under the related purchase order for moulds and a de-flesher should be referred to the same arbitration as disputes under the machinery agreement.

3. Whether the respondent could rely on the purchase orders’ stipulation that selection of the arbitrator would be the petitioner’s prerogative.

Under Section 11(6A) of the A&C Act, the referral court’s inquiry is confined to prima facie satisfaction as to the existence of an arbitration agreement; other issues, including the merits and jurisdictional objections, are ordinarily left to the arbitral tribunal under Section 16 (*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) 4 SCC 695).

An arbitrator is appointed in accordance with the parties’ agreement or, where no agreement is reached, under the A&C Act.

A party interested in the outcome cannot unilaterally appoint the sole arbitrator, consistent with *TRF Ltd. v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd.*, (2017) 8 SCC 377, *Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd.*, (2020) 20 SCC 760, and *Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV)*, (2025) 4 SCC 641.

The arbitration agreement’s existence was undisputed, the petitioner had invoked arbitration, and no agreement on appointment had been reached; the respondent’s objections concerning prematurity and the merits did not prevent referral at the Section 11 stage.

The moulds and de-flesher were procured for use with the same machine, featured in the petitioner’s refund claim and the respondent’s proposed counterclaims, and were covered by the arbitration notice. A composite proceeding was therefore appropriate, while any objection to the scope of reference remained open before the arbitrator.

The Court also declined to give effect to the purchase-order appointment stipulation as a basis for unilateral appointment; the petitioner instead sought an independent appointment consistent with Clause 17.2.

The arbitration is to proceed under the aegis and rules of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, subject to the arbitrator furnishing the disclosure required by Section 12 of the A&C Act.

The parties’ claims, counterclaims, and other contentions were left open for determination by the arbitrator, and the petition was disposed of.