Section 11 arbitration appointments require judicial determination, notice, and hearing before tribunal constitution.

Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was treated as conferring a judicial function on the Chief Justice or a designated Judge, requiring determination of threshold jurisdictional facts such as the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, party status, maintainability, and whether the dispute is live or barred. The function could not be assigned to a District Judge or non-judicial body. The majority further held that notice and an opportunity of hearing are required before appointing an arbitrator, since the decision affects rights and involves adjudication on appointment conditions. The arbitral tribunal's competence under Section 16 does not reopen matters conclusively decided at the Section 11 stage.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the power exercised under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is judicial or administrative and what preliminary matters may be decided at that stage; (ii) Whether the Chief Justice or his designate must issue notice and afford hearing before appointing an arbitrator, and whether a non-judicial body or a District Judge can be designated for that function.

Issue (i): Whether the power exercised under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is judicial or administrative and what preliminary matters may be decided at that stage.

Analysis: Section 11(6) was held to require the Chief Justice or his designate to decide jurisdictional facts before making an appointment, including whether there is a valid arbitration agreement, whether the applicant is a party to it, whether the request is maintainable, whether the dispute is dead or barred, and whether the statutory conditions for appointment exist. The finality attached by Section 11(7), together with the scheme of Sections 8, 9, 11 and 16, was treated as inconsistent with a purely ministerial function. The Court held that the Chief Justice acts as the highest judicial authority and not as persona designata, and that a designated Judge alone may exercise the function; a District Judge or non-judicial institution cannot be entrusted with the decision-making power under Section 11(6). The arbitral tribunal's competence under Section 16 does not permit it to reopen matters conclusively decided under Section 11.

Conclusion: The power under Section 11(6) is judicial, not administrative, and the preliminary jurisdictional issues may be decided by the Chief Justice or a designated Judge; designation of a District Judge or non-judicial body is impermissible.

Issue (ii): Whether the Chief Justice or his designate must issue notice and afford hearing before appointing an arbitrator, and whether a non-judicial body or a District Judge can be designated for that function.

Analysis: Because the appointment decision affects rights and involves adjudication on the existence of arbitration agreement and the conditions for appointment, the majority held that notice and an opportunity of hearing are necessary. The Scheme framed under Section 11(10) was read down to the extent it contemplated notice, and the Court held that the scheme could not authorize a non-judicial institution to perform adjudicatory functions. The majority also held that once the tribunal is constituted, courts should not interfere with tribunal orders except as permitted by Sections 34 and 37, and that the Section 11 decision is amenable only to Article 136 where the order is by the Chief Justice of a High Court or designated Judge.

Conclusion: Notice and hearing are required before appointment, and the function cannot be assigned to a non-judicial body or a District Judge.

Dissenting Opinion: C.K. Thakker, J. held that the function under Section 11(6) is administrative, that the Chief Justice may act through any person or institution designated by him, that the Chief Justice need only be prima facie satisfied, and that the doctrine of duty to act fairly requires notice before appointment.

Final Conclusion: The controlling view overruled the earlier administrative-function line of authority, affirmed judicial control over the threshold appointment process under Section 11, and required notice and hearing before appointment while preserving the tribunal's merits jurisdiction under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: When a statute entrusts a final decision on jurisdictional facts to the highest judicial authority for constituting an arbitral tribunal, the function is judicial in character, the affected party must be heard, and the arbitral tribunal cannot reopen matters conclusively decided at the Section 11 stage.

---