Appointment of independent sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) following respondent’s failure to constitute the tribunal.

The Applicant, a registered partnership firm, was declared the successful bidder for a contract involving the "Improvement of critical implantation of 130 nos in Durg–Nagpur Section," with a Letter of Acceptance issued on 25.01.2022 for approximately Rs. 1.39 Crores

A formal contract was executed in May 2022, but the work suffered delays due to the alleged non-availability of work fronts and power blocks, leading to extensions until 01.09.2023

The respondent issued "poor progress" notices and eventually terminated the contract on 22.07.2024

Following the failure of conciliation and the respondent’s refusal to appoint an independent arbitrator (specifically a retired High Court Judge) as requested in the Applicant's notices dated 30.10.2024 and 03.03.2025, the Applicant approached the High Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Whether the preconditions for the appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, were satisfied given the respondent's failure to appoint an arbitrator upon invocation

The court applied Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which provides for the appointment of an arbitrator by the Court when a party fails to act as required under the appointment procedure agreed upon by the parties

The court also adhered to the principle of judicial consistency, noting that in similar matters involving the same respondent, independent retired judges were appointed to ensure fair and expeditious adjudication

The Court examined the procedural history and found that the Applicant had duly invoked the arbitration clause and satisfied the statutory requirements for seeking judicial intervention

The Applicant argued that a retired High Court Judge had been appointed in a similar matter, and the respondents, while initially opposing the petition, did not dispute this fact nor did they contest the suitability of the proposed arbitrator

The Court noted the respondent's concession that the dispute could be referred to the same retired judge who was presiding over similar cases

Consequently, the Court determined that the appointment of an independent arbitrator was necessary to resolve the disputes arising from the contract termination and alleged delays

It held that an independent arbitrator was required and appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. K. Shrivastava, a retired Judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court, as the Sole Arbitrator

The Court directed the Registry to communicate the order to the arbitrator and ordered that the arbitrator's remuneration be settled by the mutual consent of the parties