Karnataka HC Appoints Sole Arbitrator In Amazon-MA Enterprises Dispute Despite Three-Member Tribunal Clause

The parties entered into Master Service Agreement-I dated 1 April 2019 and Master Service Agreement-II dated 1 April 2020, both containing an arbitration clause providing for a three-member tribunal: one arbitrator nominated by each party and a presiding arbitrator appointed by the two nominees.

Amazon issued a notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on 9 November 2022; the respondent did not respond.

Amazon then sought appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11. Although the petition’s stated prayer referred to appointment of a second arbitrator and constitution of a three-member tribunal, counsel submitted that a sole arbitrator could be appointed.

The Court applied Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as the basis for appointing an arbitrator where the agreed appointment process requires court intervention. It also considered Section 21, under which arbitral proceedings are commenced by a request that the dispute be referred to arbitration.

Clause 9.2 of the agreements, which provides for arbitration of unresolved disputes by three arbitrators, in accordance with the Act. The Court cited no precedent and did not set out a broader legal test for replacing the contractually specified tribunal with a sole arbitrator.

The Court found that the agreements contained an arbitration clause covering disputes between the parties and that Amazon had invoked it by serving a Section 21 notice. The respondent did not respond to that notice and, despite service of court notice, remained unrepresented. On that basis, the Court considered appointment necessary.

It accepted counsel’s submission that a sole arbitrator could be appointed, notwithstanding Clause 9.2’s three-arbitrator procedure, but did not explain why that procedure was displaced or address the difference between the petition’s stated prayer and the relief granted.

All claims and contentions were left open; the Registry was directed to communicate the order and return original documents after retaining photocopies.

The parties were directed to appear before the Centre’s Director on 15 December 2026 at 11:30 a.m.