Arbitrator substitution under the agreed clause governs where the first appointee does not act; Section 11 intervention is unavailable.

Where the arbitration agreement vested the respondent's board with power to appoint the sole arbitrator, a later substitute appointment made under that contractual mechanism remained valid after the initially named arbitrator did not enter upon the reference. Section 15(2) required substitution to follow the rules applicable to the original appointment, and that expression included the parties' agreed procedure. Because there was no failure to act under the agreed clause, the Court's power under Section 11(6) was not triggered and the Section 11 petition was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after the initially appointed arbitrator did not enter upon the reference, the respondent could appoint a substitute arbitrator under the arbitration clause and whether a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was maintainable.

Analysis: The agreement empowered the respondent's board to appoint the sole arbitrator. The earlier appointment of Dr. Birendra Saraf in the winding-up proceedings was not an appointment under Section 11 of the Act and, upon his recusal, the original contractual appointment procedure remained operative. Section 15(2) requires a substitute arbitrator to be appointed according to the rules applicable to the original appointment, and the expression covers the contractual mechanism agreed by the parties. Since the respondent acted under clause 21 of the agreement, there was no failure to act under the agreed procedure and no occasion for the Court to exercise power under Section 11(6).

Conclusion: The respondent's appointment of the substitute arbitrator was valid and the application under Section 11 was not maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the original appointment mechanism survives under the arbitration agreement, substitution after the first appointee declines to act must follow that agreed mechanism, and Court intervention under Section 11(6) arises only on failure to act in terms of that procedure.

---