Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator from a bank’s self-curated ODR platform list violates party autonomy and law.

The Petitioner challenged an ex parte interim order dated January 15, 2026, passed by a sole arbitrator appointed via an Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) platform chosen unilaterally by the Respondent, ICICI Bank.

The Petitioner alleged mis-selling and financial irregularities by the Bank.

The Impugned Order attached the Petitioner’s bank accounts and mandated a disclosure of assets regarding a personal loan dispute.

During the hearing, ICICI Bank offered to withdraw the current proceedings and consented to the appointment of an independent ODR platform.

1. Whether the unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by one party through a curated list of ODR platforms is legally valid under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

2. Whether the specific arbitration clause (Clause 28), which grants a "first-mover advantage" to the Bank in selecting an ODR institution, violates the principle of party autonomy.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, specifically Section 11 (appointment of arbitrators), Section 17 (interim measures), and Section 21 (commencement of proceedings).

TRF Ltd. v. Energo Engg. Projects Ltd. and Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd., which prohibit unilateral appointments by an interested party.

Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India, affirming that party autonomy must operate within the mandatory framework of the Act.

DS Textiles v. IIFL Finance Limited regarding the illegality of such appointments.

The Court observed that ICICI Bank’s arbitration clause was "problematic" because it forced the counterparty to accept an ODR institution curated solely by the Bank, effectively "contracting out" the Petitioner’s right to participate in the selection process.

Although the Bank presented a list of ODR platforms, the Court noted that at the time of the dispute, the list contained only one name, rendering the "choice" illusory.

The Court rejected the Bank’s reliance on Explanation 3 of the Seventh Schedule, ruling that recovery proceedings do not constitute "specialized" arbitration (like maritime or commodities) that would justify a narrow, frequently reused pool of arbitrators.

The Court emphasized that there are only two legal methods for appointment: mutual consent or a Section 11 application; a "curated list" by one party satisfies neither.

The Court quashed and set aside the Impugned Order and directed all banks to lift the debit freeze on the Petitioner's accounts.

By consent, the Court appointed Presolv360 as an independent ODR institution to nominate an arbitrator and adjudicate the dispute.

The Petition was disposed of with a directive for the Bank to review its appointment processes to ensure future compliance with Supreme Court mandates.