Judicial Intervention Under Section 11 to Appoint Sole Arbitrator Upon Failure of Party Consensus

The Petitioner, a manufacturing company, was awarded a contract by the Respondent (a Government of India undertaking) for the supply, erection, and commissioning of an Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) and a Sewerage Treatment Plant (STP)

The work was governed by Letters of Intent dated 30.06.2008, a work order dated 11.08.2008, and the General Conditions of Contract (GCC)

Disputes arose regarding outstanding payments for running account bills and retention money totaling Rs. 1,28,77,352.95/-

The Petitioner invoked the arbitration clause (Clause 33 of the GCC) via a Section 21 notice on 16.01.2026

The parties failed to reach a consensus on the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator, leading the Petitioner to approach the High Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

1. Whether a Sole Arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11(6) of the Act given the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement?

2. Whether the Court can refer the matter to arbitration when the Respondent does not object to the appointment?

The Court applied Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which empowers the Court to appoint an arbitrator when parties fail to agree on a procedure

It relied on the precedent SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning (2024), which establishes that the scope of inquiry under Section 11 is strictly confined to examining the prima facie existence of a valid arbitration agreement

The Court also referenced Section 21 regarding the commencement of arbitral proceedings

Section 12(2) regarding mandatory arbitrator disclosures

The Court observed that the core requirement for exercising jurisdiction under Section 11—the existence of a valid arbitration agreement—was undisputed by both parties

Since the Petitioner had properly invoked the arbitration clause through a Section 21 notice and the parties had reached a deadlock over the specific individual to be appointed, the statutory conditions for judicial intervention were met

During the hearing, the Respondent’s counsel expressly stated they had no objection to the relief sought

Consequently, as the parties were ad idem (in agreement) regarding the reference of disputes to arbitration and there was no legal impediment, the Court determined it was necessary to appoint an independent arbitrator to adjudicate the claims

The Court directed that the arbitration be conducted under the rules and aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and that the arbitrator must provide disclosures under Section 12(2) of the Act

All pleas regarding arbitrability, jurisdiction, and limitation were left open for the arbitrator to decide

The petition and pending applications were disposed of accordingly