Unilateral Arbitrator Appointment Invalid After Expiry of Time, with Court exercising section 11 power to appoint the sole arbitrator.

A unilateral appointment of a sole arbitrator after expiry of the contractual appointment period was invalid where the petitioner had already proposed a retired Judge from the approved panel and no timely disagreement was raised. Once the agreed name was proposed and the respondent failed to act within the stipulated time, the appointment power shifted to the Court under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court therefore cancelled the respondent's appointment and appointed a retired Judge from the FICCI panel as sole arbitrator.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent could unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator after expiry of the period for appointment, where the petitioner had proposed a retired Judge as the named arbitrator.

Analysis: The petitioner had named a retired Judge from the approved panel, and the respondent's attempt to invoke its own appointment mechanism came only after the period contemplated for disagreement had expired. Once the agreed name was proposed and no timely disagreement was raised, the matter fell within the Court's power to appoint an arbitrator under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The unilateral appointment made by the respondent could not be sustained, and the earlier appointment was cancelled.

Conclusion: The unilateral appointment of the sole arbitrator was invalid, and the Court appointed a retired Judge from the FICCI panel as the sole arbitrator.

---