Court Appoints Independent Sole Arbitrator Following Setting Aside of Award Rendered by Unilaterally Constituted Tribunal

The Petitioner, a manufacturer of brake blocks, entered into a contract with Northern Railways for the supply of 'K' Type High Friction Composite Brake Blocks

The contract was governed by the Indian Railways Standard General Conditions of Contract (GCC), 2018, which included an arbitration clause (Clause 2900)

Disputes arose regarding the quality of supplied materials, leading the Petitioner to invoke arbitration on 26.03.2022. The Petitioner objected to the appointment of Railway officers as per Section 12(5) of the A&C Act

However, the Respondent unilaterally constituted a tribunal of retired Railway officers which passed an award on 16.11.2023

This award was set aside by the High Court on 31.07.2025 in O.M.P. (COMM.) 151/2024 due to the improper constitution of the tribunal, granting liberty to seek a fresh tribunal

Despite a fresh notice by the Petitioner on 15.09.2025, the Respondent failed to nominate an arbitrator, leading to the present petition under Section 11(6)

1. Whether an independent Arbitral Tribunal should be constituted under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act after the previous award was set aside for lack of independence/impartiality?

2. Whether a Sole Arbitrator can be appointed by the Court despite a contractual stipulation for a three-member tribunal if both parties consent?

The court primarily applied Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, regarding the court's power to appoint arbitrators when the agreed procedure fails

It looked to Section 12(5) regarding the independence and impartiality of arbitrators

The court also relied on the precedent of Gr Green Life Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. Leitwind Shriram Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. (2021), which establishes that a contractual stipulation for a three-member tribunal stands superseded if parties agree before the Court to a Sole Arbitrator

The Court observed that the previous arbitral award had already been set aside because the tribunal—composed exclusively of retired Railway officers—violated the principles of impartiality and Section 12(5) of the Act

Since the Respondent failed to act upon the Petitioner’s fresh notice for appointment dated 15.09.2025 and subsequent reminder, the Court found the filing of the Section 11 petition justified

Although Clause 2900 of the GCC contemplated a three-member panel, both parties' counsel expressed no objection to the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator

Applying the ratio in Gr Green Life Energy, the Court determined that this mutual consent overrode the original contractual requirement for a three-member tribunal

The Court held that the arbitration shall be conducted under the aegis and rules of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). The arbitrator was directed to provide statutory disclosures under Section 12, and the Respondent was granted the right to raise preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction or arbitrability before the arbitrator. The petition was disposed of accordingly.