Section 11 nomination under arbitration law is an administrative act, with challenges left to the arbitral process.

Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was construed as a gap-filling mechanism to secure prompt constitution of the arbitral tribunal, with the Chief Justice or designate performing only a limited nomination function where statutory preconditions exist. The Court held that this role does not involve adjudication of disputed claims or tribunal competence, and that objections to independence, impartiality and jurisdiction are to be raised under the Act's challenge and competence provisions. On that basis, the nomination order was treated as administrative and not amenable to special leave jurisdiction under article 136. The Court also held that any scheme under section 11 cannot require a show-cause notice beyond the statute; notice may only inform the other party and allow participation if desired.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the order of the Chief Justice or his designate under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, nominating an arbitrator is an adjudicatory order or an administrative order and whether it is amenable to special leave jurisdiction under article 136 of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether the scheme framed under section 11 could require notice to the opposite party to show cause against the proposed nomination.

Issue (i): whether the order of the Chief Justice or his designate under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, nominating an arbitrator is an adjudicatory order or an administrative order and whether it is amenable to special leave jurisdiction under article 136 of the Constitution of India

Analysis: Section 11 was construed as a provision intended to fill the gap in the constitution of the arbitral tribunal so that arbitration may commence expeditiously. The function assigned to the Chief Justice or his designate was held to be limited to nomination of an arbitrator where the statutory preconditions existed. The provision did not require adjudication of disputed claims between the parties. Questions as to the independence or impartiality of the arbitrator were left to the challenge procedure under sections 12 and 13, while objections to the tribunal's competence could be raised under section 16. On that basis, the order under section 11 was held not to be a judicial or quasi-judicial determination and the Chief Justice or his designate was held not to be a tribunal for purposes of article 136.

Conclusion: The order under section 11 is administrative and not amenable to special leave jurisdiction under article 136.

Issue (ii): whether the scheme framed under section 11 could require notice to the opposite party to show cause against the proposed nomination

Analysis: The statutory scheme was held to control the interpretation of section 11, not the other way round. To the extent the scheme required the opposite party to be served notice to show cause why the nomination should not be made, it was considered to travel beyond section 11. Notice to the other party was permissible only to inform it of the request and enable it, if it chose, to assist in the nomination.

Conclusion: The notice-to-show-cause requirement in the scheme was invalid to the extent it exceeded section 11.

Final Conclusion: The Court affirmed that nomination under section 11 is a non-adjudicatory appointment function, restrained the scheme from enlarging the statute, and upheld the dismissal of the appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: A nomination of an arbitrator under section 11 is an administrative act meant only to complete the arbitral tribunal's constitution, leaving adjudication of jurisdictional and challenge issues to the arbitral process and post-award remedies.

---