Arbitration appointment under Section 11 must be decided as one judicial proceeding; split entitlement-and-appointment procedure is impermissible.

Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act requires the Chief Justice or Designate Judge to decide the application as a single judicial proceeding, including jurisdiction, valid arbitration agreement, live claim, and the conditions for appointment. The process cannot be split into separate stages before different judicial officers, so a two-tier approach dividing entitlement and actual appointment is impermissible. The Calcutta High Court procedure treating those matters separately was inconsistent with the governing law and was overruled to that extent. The impugned orders were set aside and the arbitration petitions were restored for fresh consideration in accordance with law, while preserving earlier Section 11 orders that had attained finality.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could be dealt with in a piecemeal, two-stage manner by different Designate Judges or by the Chief Justice and a Designate Judge. (ii) Whether the Calcutta High Court procedure treating the determination of entitlement to appointment and the actual appointment as separate stages was legally sustainable in view of the governing law under Section 11.

Issue (i): Whether an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could be dealt with in a piecemeal, two-stage manner by different Designate Judges or by the Chief Justice and a Designate Judge.

Analysis: Section 11 confers on the Chief Justice or the designated Judge a judicial function to decide the matters entrusted under the provision, including jurisdiction, existence of a valid arbitration agreement, live claim, and the conditions for exercise of power. The scheme of the provision does not contemplate splitting the decision-making process between different judicial officers so that one decides entitlement and another makes the appointment. The application has to be considered as a whole by the Chief Justice or the Designate Judge.

Conclusion: The piecemeal, two-tier procedure was held impermissible.

Issue (ii): Whether the Calcutta High Court procedure treating the determination of entitlement to appointment and the actual appointment as separate stages was legally sustainable in view of the governing law under Section 11.

Analysis: The earlier Division Bench view permitting a distinction between the procedure for appointment and the actual appointment was held inconsistent with the later authoritative seven-Judge Bench decision that characterises the function under Section 11(6) as judicial and requires the matter to be dealt with in its entirety by the Chief Justice or the Designate Judge. To that extent, the earlier view stood overruled and the impugned orders based on that procedure could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The Calcutta High Court procedure was held legally unsustainable and contrary to the governing law.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the arbitration petitions were restored for fresh consideration in accordance with law, while preserving orders under Section 11 that had already attained finality.

Ratio Decidendi: A request under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is to be decided as a single judicial proceeding by the Chief Justice or the designated Judge, and the statute does not permit bifurcation of the decision between different judicial authorities or a split determination of entitlement and appointment.

---