Failure to respond to an arbitration invocation notice warrants appointment of an independent sole arbitrator under Section 11.

The petitioner and the respondent entered into Agreement No. 73/EE/HMD(Central)/2018-19 for construction of an Effluent Treatment Plant and related sewerage, water-supply and horticulture works at MAMC.

Clause 25 of the agreement contained an arbitration clause.

Disputes arose between the parties, following which the petitioner issued a notice dated 17 June 2026 invoking Clause 25 and Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“A&C Act”), seeking appointment of an arbitrator.

The respondent did not reply to the notice.

In the Section 11(6) petition, the respondent’s authorised representative accepted notice and stated that the respondent had no objection to appointment of an independent sole arbitrator.

Whether, in view of the arbitration agreement, the disputes raised by the petitioner and the respondent’s failure to respond to the invocation notice, a sole arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act.

Whether an independent arbitrator was required to be appointed in light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court concerning unilateral appointment of arbitrators.

The Court applied Section 11(6) of the A&C Act, which empowers the Court to appoint an arbitrator where the agreed appointment procedure has failed, and Section 21 concerning commencement of arbitral proceedings upon receipt of a request for reference to arbitration.

The Court also recognised Clause 25 of the agreement as the arbitration agreement.

It relied on TRF Limited v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd., (2017) 8 SCC 377; Bharat Broadband Network Limited v. United Telecoms Limited, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 547; and Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd., (2020) 20 SCC 760, which establish that a person who is himself ineligible to act as an arbitrator cannot unilaterally appoint an arbitrator, thereby requiring appointment of an independent arbitrator.

The Court also referred to Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Ltd., (2026) 3 SCC 264.

The appointed arbitrator was required to furnish the disclosure contemplated under Section 12 of the A&C Act.

The existence of Clause 25 established an arbitration agreement, and the petitioner had validly invoked it through the notice dated 17 June 2026.

The respondent’s failure to respond necessitated the petitioner’s approach to the Court under Section 11(6).

Since the respondent expressly raised no objection to appointment of an independent sole arbitrator, and the Supreme Court authorities require independence in the constitution of the tribunal where unilateral appointment is impermissible, the Court appointed a former Judge of the Delhi High Court as sole arbitrator.

The Court preserved the respondent’s right to raise objections concerning jurisdiction or arbitrability before the arbitrator.

The arbitration was directed to be conducted under the aegis of, and in accordance with, the rules of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).

The arbitrator was directed to furnish the statutory disclosure under Section 12 of the A&C Act.

All claims, counter-claims and contentions were left open for determination on merits, and the respondent was permitted to raise preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction and arbitrability before the arbitrator.