Contractual arbitral appointment mechanism bars Section 11(6) intervention once the agreed process has been followed

Where a contract for a three-member international commercial arbitration vested appointment of the Presiding Arbitrator in the President of the Indian Road Congress if the two party-appointed arbitrators failed to agree, Section 11(6) was not attracted once that contractual mechanism had operated. The Presiding Arbitrator had already been appointed in accordance with the agreed procedure, so there was no default justifying court intervention. The Supreme Court also rejected the argument that the appointing authority had to choose a legally trained arbitrator merely because the dispute raised legal questions. The appointment was therefore upheld and intervention under Section 11(6) was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to invoke Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of a Presiding Arbitrator when the agreed contractual mechanism vested that power in the President of the Indian Road Congress and the Presiding Arbitrator had already been appointed accordingly.

Analysis: The dispute arose in the setting of an international commercial arbitration, but the contract itself prescribed a three-member tribunal and specifically provided that where the two party-appointed arbitrators failed to agree on the Presiding Arbitrator within the stipulated period, the President of the Indian Road Congress would make the appointment. The two arbitrators were unable to reach consensus within time, and the Presiding Arbitrator was thereafter appointed by the Indian Road Congress in accordance with the contractual procedure. As the agreed mechanism had operated and the appointment had been made under that mechanism, there was no failure attracting Section 11(6). The Court also rejected the contention that the appointing authority had to select a legally trained arbitrator merely because the dispute involved questions of law.

Conclusion: The appointment of the Presiding Arbitrator was valid, and the petitions did not warrant intervention under Section 11(6).

---