Section 11(6) permits appointment of an independent sole arbitrator despite a unilateral contractual appointment clause.

The Applicant invoked Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator in respect of disputes arising from the agreement at Annexure A/2.

Clause 62 of the agreement provided for arbitration by the Director (Marketing) of Indian Oil Corporation Limited or an officer nominated by him, and further stated that no person other than such officer could act as arbitrator.

The Applicant had earlier challenged this unilateral appointment mechanism in WPC No. 6591 of 2025; the writ petition was dismissed on 17 December 2025 with liberty to seek appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6).

In the present proceedings, the Respondents accepted that an arbitrator could be appointed to resolve the dispute.

Whether the Applicant was entitled to seek appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in respect of disputes arising from the agreement.

Whether, notwithstanding Clause 62 of the agreement prescribing appointment by the Director (Marketing) or his nominee, an independent sole arbitrator could be appointed by the High Court.

The Court applied Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which enables the Court to take necessary measures for appointment of an arbitrator where the agreed appointment procedure has not resulted in appointment of the arbitral tribunal.

It also considered Clause 62 of the agreement, which contained the parties’ arbitration agreement and prescribed a mechanism for appointment of the arbitrator.

The Court ultimately acted on the consent of the parties to appoint a sole arbitrator.

The Court found that the Applicant’s claim involved disputes arising out of the agreement containing a valid arbitration clause.

Although Clause 62 contemplated appointment by the Director (Marketing) or his nominee, the Applicant had been permitted, following dismissal of the earlier writ petition, to pursue the remedy under Section 11(6).

Since the Respondents agreed that an arbitrator should be appointed, the Court resolved the appointment issue by consensually designating Shri Justice R.C.S. Samant, retired Judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court, as the sole arbitrator.

The Court therefore did not undertake an independent adjudication of the validity of the unilateral appointment mechanism.

The relevant records were directed to be forwarded to the arbitrator, and his remuneration was left to be settled by mutual consent of the parties.