Arbitrator substitution must follow the agreed contractual mechanism; courts cannot rewrite the appointment procedure or bypass party autonomy.

On resignation of the presiding arbitrator, substitution had to follow the original contractual appointment mechanism read with Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The two party-nominated arbitrators were required to seek consensus first, and only if that process failed could the designated contractual authority be approached; Section 11(6) was not available unless the agreed mechanism broke down. The court also could not appoint a judicial arbitrator contrary to the express arbitration clause, because party autonomy required strict adherence to the agreed procedure for selecting the presiding arbitrator. The High Court's appointment was therefore set aside and the parties were directed to proceed under the contract.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, on resignation of the presiding arbitrator, the appointment of a substitute had to be made under the agreed contractual mechanism read with Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or whether the Court could be approached under Section 11(6) of that Act; (ii) whether the Court could appoint a judicial arbitrator contrary to the express contractual procedure for choosing the presiding arbitrator.

Issue (i): Whether, on resignation of the presiding arbitrator, the appointment of a substitute had to be made under the agreed contractual mechanism read with Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or whether the Court could be approached under Section 11(6) of that Act.

Analysis: On the resignation of the presiding arbitrator, the mandate terminated and the vacancy had to be filled in accordance with the original rules governing appointment. The two party-nominated arbitrators were first required to attempt a consensus, and only on their failure could the designated contractual authority be approached. Section 15(2) governed the substitution, and the jurisdiction under Section 11(6) could not be invoked unless the designated authority failed to act in accordance with the agreed procedure.

Conclusion: The substitute appointment had to be made under Section 15(2) and the agreed contractual mechanism, not under Section 11(6).

Issue (ii): Whether the Court could appoint a judicial arbitrator contrary to the express contractual procedure for choosing the presiding arbitrator.

Analysis: The arbitration clause specifically vested the appointment of the presiding arbitrator in the designated contractual authority after the party-nominated arbitrators failed to agree. That bargain could not be altered by judicially rewriting the clause or by importing an unwritten qualification that the presiding arbitrator must also be a judicial person. Party autonomy and the sanctity of the agreed arbitral procedure required strict adherence to the contractual method.

Conclusion: The Court could not rewrite the arbitration clause or substitute its own method of appointment contrary to the contract.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's appointment was set aside and the parties were required to proceed afresh under the contractual appointment mechanism for the presiding arbitrator.

Ratio Decidendi: Upon termination of an arbitrator's mandate, substitution must follow the original appointment procedure under Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and court intervention under Section 11(6) is unavailable unless the designated appointing mechanism fails; the court cannot rewrite the parties' agreed arbitral procedure.

---