Contractual arbitration mechanism prevails where the appointing authority has acted, limiting Section 11 intervention.

Where an arbitration clause prescribes a specific method for constituting the tribunal, that contractual mechanism prevails and the court should not displace it under Section 11 once the appointing authority has acted. The General Manager had already appointed the arbitral tribunal under the agreed procedure, so the High Court's appointment of a sole arbitrator was unsustainable. The Court also clarified that Section 11 remains available if the appointing authority fails to act within the stipulated time or before the other party moves the court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 when the contract provided a specific mechanism for constitution of the arbitral tribunal and the General Manager had already made an appointment.

Analysis: The contractual clauses governing arbitration required the dispute to be referred and the tribunal to be constituted in the manner stipulated by the agreement. The General Manager had already acted under that procedure and appointed the arbitral tribunal. In such a situation, the Court held that the High Court ought not to supplant the contractual mechanism by appointing a sole arbitrator of its own choice. Reliance on the later decision in SBP & Co. did not assist the respondent because the issue was governed by the earlier binding decision concerning railway contracts and the agreed appointment procedure. At the same time, the Court clarified that where the appointing authority fails to act within the prescribed time or before the other party approaches the Court, the High Court's power under Section 11 remains available.

Conclusion: The High Court's appointment of the arbitrator was unsustainable, and the contractual appointment made by the General Manager was restored as the governing mode for arbitration.

---