Contractual choice of arbitral forum bars Section 11 appointment in India where the agreement names a foreign arbitration authority.

A contractual dispute-resolution clause naming the Arbitration Court under the Chamber of Commerce and Trade of the Russian Federation as the forum was treated as binding. In light of that express forum choice, the Supreme Court held that it could not assume jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint an arbitrator in India. The agreement excluded recourse to another appointment forum, and the Court therefore declined to interfere with the parties' chosen arbitral mechanism. The petition for appointment of an arbitrator in India was rejected as not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in the face of a clause in the agency agreement providing that disputes shall be submitted to the Arbitration Court under the Chamber of Commerce and Trade of the Russian Federation, the Supreme Court could entertain a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator in India.

Analysis: The dispute-resolution clause in the agreement specifically named the forum before which disputes between the parties were to be submitted. The appointment power under Section 11(6) was considered in light of the settled position that the designated authority must first be satisfied about the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and its own jurisdiction. Since the contract conferred the arbitral forum on the Chamber of Commerce and Trade of the Russian Federation, the agreement excluded recourse to another forum for appointment of an arbitrator. The Court treated the contractual choice of forum as binding and held that it could not assume jurisdiction contrary to that stipulation.

Conclusion: The petition under Section 11(6) was not maintainable before the Supreme Court, and the request for appointment of an arbitrator in India was rejected.

---