A respondent’s failure to nominate an arbitrator permits appointment of a sole arbitrator despite a three-member clause.

The petitioner sought appointment of an arbitrator in relation to disputes arising from a work order dated 12 April 2024.

Clause 19 of the work order provided for a three-member arbitral tribunal, with each party nominating one arbitrator and the two nominees jointly appointing the presiding arbitrator.

The petitioner invoked arbitration by notice dated 8 April 2026 and nominated its arbitrator, but the respondent did not nominate one.

The respondent was served with notice of the Section 11 petition but neither appeared nor filed a reply.

The petitioner stated that its claim was approximately ₹1,22,14,225.

Whether a valid arbitration agreement prima facie existed between the parties, warranting the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Whether, in the circumstances—including the respondent’s failure to nominate an arbitrator—the Court should appoint a sole arbitrator despite Clause 19 providing for a three-member tribunal.

Under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court’s enquiry is confined to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement.

The Court relied on SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754, for this principle.

The appointed arbitrator was also required to furnish the disclosure contemplated by Section 12(2) of the Act.

The Court found that Clause 19 of the work order constituted an arbitration agreement and that the petitioner had invoked it and nominated its arbitrator.

The respondent, despite service, did not appear, file a reply, or nominate its arbitrator.

Concluding that there was no impediment to appointment, the Court appointed a sole arbitrator.

It permitted the parties to raise objections, including as to arbitrability and jurisdiction, before the arbitrator and clarified that its observations were confined to the Section 11 petition.

He was directed to enter upon the reference within two weeks and furnish the required disclosure within two weeks of entering the reference.

The arbitration was to proceed under the rules and aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, with fees payable under its schedule.