Arbitrator appointment under arbitration law not barred by sick company protection; section 22 held inapplicable to the appointment stage.

Section 11 appointment of an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was held to have a narrow and limited scope, and the respondent's status as a sick industrial company did not bar the request. Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was found inapplicable to the proceeding for appointment of an arbitrator, so the objection based on sickness protection was overruled. The Court noted that any challenge to the continuation of arbitration could still be raised in appropriate proceedings under law, and an arbitrator was appointed.

---

---

Issues: Whether an arbitrator could be appointed under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 notwithstanding the respondent's status as a sick industrial company and the operation of section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.

Analysis: The application was under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator by the Chief Justice or his designate. The requirements of sections 11(5) and 11(6) were not in dispute. The objection based on the respondent's status as a sick industrial company was rejected because the proceeding for appointment of an arbitrator was held to have a narrow scope and not to be covered by section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The Court also noted that any challenge to the continuation of arbitration could be pursued in appropriate proceedings under law.

Conclusion: The objection was overruled and an arbitrator was appointed.

---