Arbitrator appointment power under the Arbitration Act cannot be exercised by a District Judge; only the designated constitutional judicial authority may appoint.

Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 vests the judicial power to appoint an arbitrator in the Chief Justice of the High Court or the Chief Justice of India, with delegation only to another Judge of the same High Court or Supreme Court, as applicable. A District Judge cannot exercise that power. On that basis, the District Court's appointment of an arbitrator was treated as lacking authority and the appointment order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the District Court had jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and whether the order appointing the arbitrator was liable to be set aside.

Analysis: The decision relied on the settled position that the power under Section 11(6) is a judicial power vested in the Chief Justice of the High Court or the Chief Justice of India, and that such power cannot be exercised by a District Judge. The ruling further recognized that the Chief Justice may designate another Judge of the same High Court or Supreme Court, as the case may be, to exercise that power, but not a District Court. In light of that legal position, the appointment of an arbitrator by the District Court was found to be without authority.

Conclusion: The District Court had no power to appoint the arbitrator, and the impugned order appointing the arbitrator was set aside.

---