Contractual arbitrator appointment procedure bars Section 11(6) court intervention unless the agreed mechanism fails.

Where parties have agreed a stepped procedure for appointing a sole arbitrator, Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot be used to bypass that mechanism. The arbitration clause required an initial decision by the Engineer-in-Charge, then an appeal to the Director General, and only thereafter reference to arbitration, while the Director General retained the right to propose a panel of eligible officers for selection. The High Court held that the contractor's attempt to insist on its own panel was premature because the contractual process had not broken down, and the respondent had acted in accordance with the agreed procedure by forwarding a panel and appointing an arbitrator when no choice was made.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in view of the agreed contractual procedure for appointment of a sole arbitrator, the petitioner could invoke Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator by the High Court.

Analysis: The arbitration clause provided a stepped mechanism: first, decision by the Engineer-in-Charge; then appeal to the Director General; and only after the decision became final and conclusive could the dispute be referred to arbitration. Clause 52.3 further vested the initial right to propose a panel of three eligible officers in the Director General, with the contractor required to select one name from that panel. The Court held that the petitioner's attempt to propose its own panel before the appeal process was premature, and that the petitioner had no right to the panel simply because it was not acceptable to it. Section 11(6) applies only when a party fails to act as required under the agreed procedure or the agreed mechanism otherwise breaks down; here, the respondent had acted in accordance with the contract by forwarding a panel and appointing one arbitrator when the petitioner failed to choose.

Conclusion: The petitioner was bound by the agreed appointment mechanism and could not bypass it to seek a court-appointed arbitrator under Section 11(6); the request for appointment by the High Court was not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The arbitration application was rejected because the contractual procedure for appointment of the sole arbitrator had been followed and no ground existed for court intervention under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Where parties have contractually agreed a specific procedure for appointment of an arbitrator, Section 11(6) can be invoked only upon failure of a party or the designated person to act in accordance with that procedure, and not to permit a party to bypass the agreed mechanism.

---