A valid arbitration clause, duly invoked, warrants appointment of a sole arbitrator.

The petitioner and respondent were parties to a Joint Development Agreement dated 30 September 2013, which contained an arbitration clause providing for resolution of disputes by a sole arbitrator appointed by mutual agreement.

Disputes arose concerning, among other matters, the respondent’s withholding of possession of an apartment and four car-parking spaces.

The petitioner issued a notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; the respondent replied, and the petitioner then sought appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(5).

The respondent did not object to appointment and requested that the parties’ contentions be left open.

1. Whether a sole arbitrator should be appointed to adjudicate the disputes arising under the Joint Development Agreement.

2. Whether the parties’ claims and contentions should be determined at the appointment stage.

The Court considered Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, under which it was asked to appoint a sole arbitrator, and Section 21, under which the petitioner had invoked arbitration by notice.

It also applied Clause 33 of the Joint Development Agreement, which provides for arbitration of disputes that cannot be resolved through negotiation and contemplates appointment of a sole arbitrator by mutual agreement.

The Court found that the Joint Development Agreement contained an arbitration clause covering disputes between the parties and that the petitioner had duly invoked that clause by issuing a Section 21 notice.

Given the respondent’s stated lack of objection to appointment, the Court concluded that a sole arbitrator should be appointed. It did not decide the underlying disputes or the merits of either party’s contentions.

All claims and contentions were left open; the parties were directed to appear before the Centre’s Director on 29 October 2026 at 11:30 a.m.