Upon failure to nominate an arbitrator, the Court appoints a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) by consensus.

The applicant, M/s Chhattisgarh Fuels, operated an Indian Oil Corporation Limited retail outlet under a dealership agreement dated 1 November 2008.

IOCL alleged that the applicant had executed a partnership deed with third parties in violation of the dealership conditions.

After an inquiry, IOCL terminated the dealership by order dated 7 July 2025.

The applicant disputed the allegations, challenged the termination, and submitted a representation to IOCL on 24 July 2025, which remained undecided.

The dealership agreement contained an arbitration clause, Clause 61(a), providing for reference of disputes to the sole arbitration of the Director (Marketing) of IOCL or an officer nominated by him.

The applicant issued a notice dated 14 April 2026 under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, invoking arbitration and requesting appointment of an arbitrator.

Despite receipt of the notice on 17 and 20 April 2026, IOCL did not nominate an arbitrator within thirty days.

The applicant consequently filed the present application under Section 11(6) of the Act.

IOCL opposed the application but stated that it had no objection to the Court appointing an arbitrator.

1. Whether, upon the respondent’s failure to appoint or nominate an arbitrator in terms of Clause 61(a) of the dealership agreement after receipt of the arbitration notice, the applicant was entitled to seek appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

2. Whether a mutually agreed retired Judge of the High Court could be appointed as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising from the dealership agreement.

The Court applied Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which empowers the competent court to appoint an arbitrator where a party fails to act in accordance with the agreed appointment procedure.

Section 21 of the Act governs commencement of arbitral proceedings upon receipt of a request for reference to arbitration.

The Court also enforced Clause 61(a) of the dealership agreement, which required disputes arising out of or relating to the agreement to be referred to a sole arbitrator appointed by the Director (Marketing) of IOCL or an officer nominated by him.

The Court found that the applicant had invoked the contractual arbitration clause by serving a notice under Section 21 and that IOCL had failed to nominate an arbitrator within the prescribed period after receiving the notice.

This failure triggered the Court’s jurisdiction under Section 11(6).

Although the underlying disputes concerned the legality of the dealership termination, the Court did not adjudicate their merits at the appointment stage.

Instead, it considered the parties’ submissions that they had no objection to the appointment of a retired Judge of the High Court and recorded their consensus on Hon’ble Mr. Justice Radhakishan Agrawal.

On that basis, the Court appointed him as the sole arbitrator.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, a retired Judge of the High Court of Chhattisgarh, was appointed as the sole arbitrator to resolve the disputes between M/s Chhattisgarh Fuels and IOCL.

The Registry was directed to communicate the order to the appointed arbitrator, and the arbitrator’s remuneration was directed to be settled by mutual consent of the parties.