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

Respondents 1 and 2 owned properties at Tarabanahalli Village, Bengaluru, which the parties agreed to develop under a Joint Development Agreement dated 11 June 2015. The petitioners alleged that they paid ₹2,07,94,000 and performed their obligations, but the respondents failed to perform theirs, resulting in disputes.

The petitioners invoked the arbitration clause in the agreement by notice dated 25 April 2026 under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; the respondents did not respond.

The petitioners then sought appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6). The respondents stated that they had no objection to appointment and that the parties’ contentions could remain open.

1. Whether the arbitration clause in the Joint Development Agreement and the petitioners’ invocation of it warranted appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act.

2. Whether the parties’ claims and contentions should be determined at the appointment stage or left open for arbitration.

The petition was brought under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator.

The Court treated the existence of an arbitration clause covering disputes between the parties, together with its invocation by notice under Section 21, as sufficient in the circumstances to appoint a sole arbitrator. No precedent was cited.

The Court found that Clause P of the Joint Development Agreement provided for arbitration of disputes arising between the parties and that the petitioners had invoked the clause by serving a Section 21 notice.

Given the respondents’ lack of objection to appointment, the Court concluded that a sole arbitrator should be appointed. It left all claims and contentions open for determination in the arbitration.

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