Arbitration appointment under Section 11 may be refused where serious fraud, injunction restraints, and incomplete procedure are shown.

Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act permits the Chief Justice or designate to examine whether an arbitration agreement exists and whether appointment conditions are satisfied. Where serious fraud is alleged, the validity of the arbitration agreement itself may be tested at the threshold because fraud can vitiate solemn acts. The subsisting High Court injunction and pending proceedings also weighed against making an appointment that would conflict with a restraint order, reflecting judicial comity. Where the agreed contractual appointment procedure had not been completed and the reliefs extended beyond the arbitration agreement, the application could not be treated as maintainable at that stage and was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator was maintainable in the facts of the case, where fraud and invalidity of the underlying arrangement were alleged, an injunction order from the High Court was in force, and the contractual appointment procedure had not been followed.

Analysis: A Chief Justice or his designate under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 exercises a judicial function and may examine whether an arbitration agreement exists and whether the conditions for appointment are satisfied. Where fraud of a serious nature is alleged, the validity of the arbitration agreement itself may be examined at the threshold, because fraud vitiates solemn acts and a valid arbitration agreement must be enforceable in law. The pending High Court proceedings and the subsisting injunction order also weighed against passing an order that would conflict with another competent court's restraint order, consistent with the principle of judicial comity. In addition, the reliefs sought were not confined to matters within the arbitration agreement, and the contractual mechanism for appointment had not been completed, so the application could not proceed as if the agreed procedure had been ignored.

Conclusion: The application was not maintainable at that stage and was dismissed.

---