Contractual arbitrator appointment is binding unless legally unenforceable; independent substitution was ed.

A contractual arbitration clause naming the company's Director as arbitrator was held binding, and a party that accepted the contract could not later seek appointment of an independent arbitrator merely because it was dissatisfied with the agreed nominee. The court applied the principle that the agreed arbitration procedure, including the identity of the named arbitrator, must be honoured unless the mechanism is impossible to perform or otherwise legally unenforceable. The request for substitution of the contractual arbitrator was rejected, and the dispute was directed to proceed before the arbitrator specified in the agreement.

---

---

Issues: Whether an independent arbitrator could be appointed despite the arbitration clause naming the company's Director as the arbitrator.

Analysis: The parties had consciously agreed to a specific arbitration clause providing that disputes would be referred to arbitration before the Director of the company. A party who enters into such a contract with full knowledge cannot later accept arbitration while rejecting the agreed appointment mechanism merely because it is dissatisfied with the named arbitrator. The Court relied on the principle that a contractual arbitration procedure, including the identity of the named arbitrator, is binding unless it is shown to be impossible of performance or otherwise void.

Conclusion: The request for appointment of a sole independent arbitrator was rejected, and the petitioner was required to proceed before the arbitrator named in the agreement.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed on the question of substituting the contractual arbitrator, and the dispute was left to be raised before the agreed forum.

Ratio Decidendi: A party cannot invoke arbitration under a contract while disregarding the agreed appointment mechanism and the named arbitrator, unless that mechanism is legally unenforceable.

---