A validly invoked arbitration clause warrants appointment of a sole arbitrator.

The petitioner was awarded a contract to construct Mini Vidhana Soudha at Chittapura Taluk, Kalaburgi District, under a Construction Agreement dated 31 March 2017.

It alleged that delays in handing over the site, revisions to the work, and delayed payments caused it loss, and claimed Rs. 8,37,70,608 with interest.

After disputes arose, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause by notice dated 10 February 2026 and corrigendum dated 25 March 2026.

The respondent did not reply.

The petitioner then sought appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The respondent had no objection to the appointment and requested that the parties’ contentions remain open.

Whether the Court should appoint a sole arbitrator to resolve the disputes arising under the Construction Agreement

Section 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, provides the basis for seeking court appointment of an arbitrator in the circumstances covered by those provisions.

The parties’ arbitration clause provided that disputes connected with the agreement would be referred to a sole arbitrator, appointed by agreement or, failing agreement, by the specified appointing authority; arbitration was to be conducted under the Act.

The Court cited no precedents.

The Court found that the Construction Agreement contained an arbitration clause covering disputes between the parties and that the petitioner had invoked it by issuing a notice under Section 21 of the Act.

As the respondent had not responded to the notice and did not oppose appointment before the Court, the Court concluded that appointment of a sole arbitrator was required.

It left all claims and contentions open for determination in arbitration.

All claims and contentions were left open.

The parties were directed to appear before the Centre’s Director on 4 November 2026 at 11:30 a.m.