Arbitral appointment procedure must honour party agreement and neutrality requirements under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act.

Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 gives primacy to the parties' agreed arbitral appointment procedure, which should be respected and, as far as possible, preserved; court intervention under Section 11(6) is appropriate only after that procedure fails. In making an appointment under Section 11(8), the appointing authority must give due regard to the qualifications stipulated in the agreement and to the need for an independent and impartial arbitrator. The provision does not require automatic appointment of the named person, but it does require meaningful consideration of the contractual criteria and neutrality requirements.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, under the appointment procedure in Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Chief Justice or his designate must first respect and, as far as possible, give effect to the agreed contractual procedure before making an appointment; (ii) Whether, in appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(8), due regard must be had to the qualifications required by the parties' agreement and to considerations securing an independent and impartial arbitrator.

Issue (i): Whether, under the appointment procedure in Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Chief Justice or his designate must first respect and, as far as possible, give effect to the agreed contractual procedure before making an appointment.

Analysis: The scheme of Section 11 places primacy on the parties' agreed appointment procedure. Section 11(6) operates when that procedure fails, and the expression "take the necessary measures" indicates that the Court is to take reasonable steps to secure appointment only after the agreed procedure has not worked. The statutory structure shows that the contractual mechanism is to be exhausted and, where possible, preserved rather than displaced at the outset.

Conclusion: The agreed appointment procedure is to be given effect as closely as possible, and recourse to court intervention under Section 11(6) is warranted only when that procedure fails.

Issue (ii): Whether, in appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(8), due regard must be had to the qualifications required by the parties' agreement and to considerations securing an independent and impartial arbitrator.

Analysis: Section 11(8) requires the appointing authority to have due regard to the qualifications stipulated by the parties and to other considerations that secure independence and impartiality. The expression "due regard" requires proper attention to those factors, though it does not make appointment of the named arbitrator compulsory. An appointment made without considering those requirements becomes vulnerable.

Conclusion: The appointing authority must consider the contractual qualifications and the need for an independent and impartial arbitrator, though it is not bound to appoint the named arbitrator in every case.

Final Conclusion: The appointments made by the High Court were set aside and the matters were sent back for fresh appointment in accordance with the statutory parameters governing Section 11.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the agreed arbitral appointment procedure must be respected and, in appointing an arbitrator, the appointing authority must give due regard to the parties' agreed qualifications and to the independence and impartiality of the arbitrator.

---