Section 11(6) jurisdiction is narrow where the agreed appointing mechanism has already appointed the arbitrator.

A reasonable construction of the arbitration clause showed that the named institution functioned as the agreed appointing mechanism, not as a body requiring court intervention under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Because the appointment request had already been made, a sole arbitrator had been appointed, and the petitioner had participated in the arbitral process, the Court could not use section 11(6) to reassess the institutional appointment or the partial award already rendered. The application was therefore not maintainable on the facts and was liable to be dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on a reasonable construction of the arbitration clause and in view of the appointment already made by the designated arbitral institution, the Court should exercise jurisdiction under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint an arbitrator.

Analysis: The arbitration clause, read as a whole, indicated that the reference to the named institution was intended to operate as the agreed appointing mechanism, since the entity mentioned was not itself an arbitral institution with rules for appointing arbitrators. The request for appointment had been made to the institutional body before the present proceeding was filed, the sole arbitrator had already been appointed, and the petitioner had participated in the arbitral process. In these circumstances, entertaining a section 11(6) request would amount to examining the correctness of the institutional appointment and the partial award already made, which lay beyond the narrow jurisdiction under section 11(6).

Conclusion: The application under section 11(6) was not maintainable in the facts of the case and was liable to be dismissed.

---