Upon parties’ consensus, a retired High Court judge was appointed as sole arbitrator.

The applicant-contractor was awarded a Railway contract on 15 July 2022 for construction of road under bridges and allied civil works at various level-crossing sites in the Bilaspur Division.

The applicant alleged that execution was delayed due to the Railway’s failure to provide clear sites, drawings, approvals, utility shifting, land acquisition, and traffic blocks, despite repeated representations and deployment of machinery.

The Railway issued a seven-day notice under Clause 62 of the GCC on 27 February 2026, followed by a 48-hour notice on 9 March 2026. The applicant submitted replies and sought extension of time, contending that the delays were attributable to the Railway.

The contract was thereafter terminated by the Railway on 16 March 2026, which the applicant challenged as arbitrary and contrary to Clause 62 and principles of natural justice.

The applicant invoked the arbitration clause through letters dated 24 April 2026 and 25 May 2026, but the General Manager did not appoint an arbitrator.

The applicant consequently filed the present application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondent did not object to appointment of an arbitrator, and both parties agreed to the appointment of a retired Judge of the High Court.

Whether an arbitrator ought to be appointed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 when the contractual appointing authority had not acted upon the applicant’s invocation of arbitration?

Whether, in view of the parties’ consensus, a retired Judge of the High Court could be appointed as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the contractual disputes?

The Court applied Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which empowers the Court to appoint an arbitrator where the agreed appointment procedure has failed or the designated authority has failed to act.

The Court also noted the statutory safeguards under Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule, which disqualify persons having specified relationships or interests that may compromise arbitral independence and impartiality.

The applicant relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV), cited as (2025) 4 SCC 641, concerning the impermissibility of unilateral appointment mechanisms that undermine arbitral neutrality.

The Court further proceeded on the parties’ consent regarding appointment of a retired Judge as sole arbitrator.

The applicant established that an arbitration agreement existed and that arbitration had been invoked, but the General Manager of the South Eastern Central Railway had not responded or appointed an arbitrator within the contractual framework.

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

The Court did not adjudicate the merits of the applicant’s allegations concerning site hindrances, delay, validity of the notices, or termination; those matters were left for determination in arbitration.

Since the respondent raised no objection to appointment and both parties expressly agreed that a retired Judge of the High Court could act as sole arbitrator, the Court accepted the consensus and selected Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, a retired Judge of the High Court of Chhattisgarh.

The Registry was directed to communicate the order to the arbitrator.

The arbitrator’s remuneration was left to be settled by mutual consent of the parties.

The arbitration application was accordingly disposed of.