Court may appoint sole arbitrator upon mutual waiver of contractual multi-member tribunal procedure.

The Applicant, a power sector company, was awarded a contract by the Respondent (a State Government undertaking) for the supply of ACSR Conductors via a Letter of Intent dated 16.08.2023

Following inspection and delivery, the Respondent rejected a portion of the goods, withheld materials worth ₹1,61,73,075/-, and imposed a penalty of ₹60,82,107.37/- for alleged delays

The Applicant invoked the arbitration clause (Clause 21 of the General Terms and Conditions) via notice on 13.09.2025

The Respondent failed to appoint an arbitrator, prompting this application under Section 11(6)

The Respondent initially contested the application, arguing the Applicant failed to follow the contractual procedure which mandated a three-member tribunal (two arbitrators and an umpire)

Whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to appoint a sole arbitrator despite a contractual clause stipulating a different appointment procedure?

The Court primarily applied Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which empowers the Chief Justice or their designate to take necessary measures for the appointment of an arbitrator when a party fails to act as required under an agreed appointment procedure

The Court also recognized the principle of party autonomy, allowing parties to mutually waive contractual stipulations regarding the composition of the Arbitral Tribunal in favor of a more "expeditious resolution"

The Court examined the arbitration agreement and the subsequent deadlock in the appointment process.

While the Respondent initially argued that the application was premature and bypassed the three-member tribunal procedure established in Clause 21, the nature of the proceedings shifted during the hearing.

The Court observed that both parties eventually reached a mutual consensus to waive the specific contractual requirement for a multi-member tribunal

By exercising its discretion under Section 11(6) in light of this joint consensus, the Court determined that appointing a sole arbitrator was the most appropriate method for the "expeditious resolution" of the dispute

The Court also noted the validity of the arbitration agreement and the existence of a live dispute regarding rejected goods and penalties

Consequently, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari (Retd.) was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator

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

The Respondent was granted liberty to raise all objections before the appointed arbitrator