No live dispute for arbitration when parties' correspondence shows contract exit and settled claims, barring arbitrator appointment.

Where correspondence shows an unconditional exit from the contract and settlement of mutual financial claims, no live dispute survives for arbitration under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Letters exchanged between the parties, together with acceptance and return of the bank guarantee, were treated as evidence that the contractual relationship had ended and that the claims stood satisfied. On that basis, the Court found the claim to be dead and refused appointment of an arbitrator because nothing remained for adjudication.

---

---

Issues: Whether an arbitrator could be appointed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 when the correspondence between the parties showed an unconditional exit from the contract and no live dispute survived.

Analysis: The letters dated 12 April 2012 and 13 April 2012, read with the respondent's acceptance and return of the bank guarantee, showed that the petitioner had stated its intention to exit the agreement and had sought return of the security. The Court treated these communications as evidence that the contractual relationship had been concluded and that the parties had recorded satisfaction of their mutual financial claims. In such a situation, the Court held that it must examine whether the claim is a dead claim or whether any dispute remains for adjudication, and found that no issue survived for arbitration.

Conclusion: Appointment of an arbitrator was refused because no live claim or dispute remained between the parties.

---