Writ review of arbitrator appointment barred where arbitration agreement exists and tribunal objections can be raised under Section 16

A writ petition challenging an order appointing arbitrators under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was treated as not maintainable where an arbitration agreement admittedly existed. The Court applied the principle that the appointing authority under Section 11 performs a limited role to constitute the tribunal and does not decide the merits of the dispute. It further noted that objections to the existence, validity, or constitution of the arbitral tribunal can be raised before the tribunal itself under Section 16. A writ challenge cannot ordinarily be used merely to contest the appointment procedure or the alleged vagueness of the arbitration clause.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition was maintainable under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against an order appointing arbitrators under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when the arbitration agreement existed and objections to the constitution or validity of the arbitral tribunal could be raised before the tribunal itself.

Analysis: The dispute arose from an application for appointment of arbitrators under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The governing principle applied was that the Chief Justice or his designate, while making an appointment under Section 11, performs a limited function to constitute the arbitral tribunal and does not decide the merits of the underlying dispute. The judgment relied on the Constitution Bench view that such appointment orders are administrative in character and that any objection to the existence, validity, or proper constitution of the arbitral tribunal can be taken before the tribunal under Section 16 of the Act. The Court also held that where an arbitration clause admittedly exists, a writ petition cannot be used to challenge the appointment merely on the ground that the clause is vague or that the appointment procedure is defective.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the challenge to the appointment order failed.

Ratio Decidendi: An order appointing an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not ordinarily amenable to writ review when an arbitration agreement exists and the aggrieved party has the remedy of raising jurisdictional or constitutional objections before the arbitral tribunal under Section 16.

---