A valid arbitration agreement and failed appointment process warrant appointment of an independent arbitrator.

The parties entered into a Brand Agreement dated 19 December 2025, under which the respondent was to manage influencer-marketing campaigns for the petitioner.

Clause 12 provided for amicable settlement and, failing that, arbitration seated in Delhi.

Alleging deficient performance and unauthorised representations, the petitioner terminated the agreement on 31 January 2026 and sought repayment; the respondent accepted termination and stated that dues would be refunded after calculation.

The petitioner invoked arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“A&C Act”) on 28 April 2026, but the parties did not agree on an arbitrator.

The respondent disputed the allegations on merits but did not dispute the agreement or the existence, validity, or applicability of the arbitration clause.

Whether a valid arbitration agreement existed and the disputes were referable to arbitration.

Whether the failure of the parties to agree on an arbitrator warranted appointment of an independent sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act.

Section 11(6) of the A&C Act empowers the Court to appoint an arbitrator when the agreed appointment procedure fails; at this stage, the Court’s examination is limited, including to whether an arbitration agreement exists.

Section 21 concerns commencement of arbitral proceedings upon receipt of a request to refer the dispute to arbitration.

The Court relied on *SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning* and *In re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899*, as well as *Aslam Ismail Khan Deshmukh v. ASAP Fluids Private Limited* and *Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. v. R Z Malpani*, for the limited examination at the Section 11 stage.

It also relied on *TRF Limited v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd.*, *Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd.*, and *Bharat Broadband Network Limited v. United Telecoms Limited* in support of appointment of an independent arbitrator.

Section 12 requires the appointed arbitrator to furnish the requisite disclosures.

Clause 12 expressly provided for arbitration in Delhi, and the respondent did not contest its existence, validity, or applicability.

The Court found that the parties’ disputes arose out of or in connection with the agreement and that the required amicable settlement had failed.

Because the parties could not agree on an arbitrator following invocation of the clause, the agreed appointment procedure had failed.

Applying the limited Section 11 inquiry and the cited authorities, the Court found no impediment to constituting the tribunal and appointed an independent sole arbitrator.

Mr. Divyansh Rathi, Advocate, was appointed sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising out of or in connection with the Brand Agreement, subject to the required Section 12 disclosures.

The arbitration was directed to proceed under the aegis of, and in accordance with the rules of, the Delhi International Arbitration Centre.

The parties’ claims, counterclaims, and other contentions were left open for determination on the merits, and the Court expressed no opinion on those merits.