Independent arbitrator appointment justified where contractual nominee created a reasonable apprehension of bias, and uncommunicated appointment was ineffective.

An uncommunicated appointment of a sole arbitrator does not become operative against the other party under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, because written communication is deemed received only on delivery; the section 11(6) petition was therefore maintainable. Although the contractual appointment procedure ordinarily carries weight, the Court may depart from it under section 11(8) where circumstances create a reasonable apprehension of bias and undermine independence or impartiality; on the facts stated, the named arbitrator's position justified appointment of an independent sole arbitrator.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent's alleged appointment of a sole arbitrator before filing of the petition, without communication to the petitioner, rendered the petition under section 11(6) not maintainable; (ii) Whether the Court should appoint the named arbitrator under the contract or appoint an independent arbitrator in the circumstances pleaded.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent's alleged appointment of a sole arbitrator before filing of the petition, without communication to the petitioner, rendered the petition under section 11(6) not maintainable.

Analysis: Written communication under section 3(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is deemed received only when delivered. An order affecting rights does not become operative against the affected party until it is communicated. The alleged appointment, even if signed earlier, could not defeat the petition unless its prior communication was established.

Conclusion: The alleged prior appointment did not render the petition not maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the Court should appoint the named arbitrator under the contract or appoint an independent arbitrator in the circumstances pleaded.

Analysis: The agreed procedure normally deserves effect, but section 11(8) requires due regard to the need for an independent and impartial arbitrator. Where material creates a reasonable apprehension that the named arbitrator may not act impartially, the Court may depart from the contractual nomination. The petitioner's grievance that the named arbitrator was an employee subordinate to the controlling authority, coupled with the surrounding contractual dispute, was sufficient to justify appointment of an independent arbitrator.

Conclusion: An independent sole arbitrator was appointed instead of the named contractual arbitrator.

Final Conclusion: The dispute was referred to an independent sole arbitrator, and the petition was disposed of accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: A contractual named arbitrator may be displaced under section 11 when circumstances create a reasonable apprehension of bias, and an uncommunicated appointment does not become effective against the opposite party.

---