Exclusive contractual arbitration procedure bars appointment of a sole arbitrator contrary to the agreed mandate.

Where an arbitration agreement mandates referral of disputes to two arbitrators who must be gazetted railway officers of equal status, the court cannot appoint a sole arbitrator outside that exclusive contractual procedure. Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 does not permit disregard of the agreed mode of appointment when the contract expressly restricts both the number and category of arbitrators. The appointment of a sole arbitrator was therefore unsustainable and was set aside, and the parties were directed to proceed in accordance with the contractual mechanism by appointing two gazetted railway officers as arbitrators.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could appoint a sole arbitrator contrary to a contractual arbitration clause requiring appointment of two gazetted railway officers as arbitrators.

Analysis: The agreement expressly provided that disputes of the relevant kind were to be referred to two arbitrators, both gazetted railway officers of equal status, and that no person other than a gazetted railway officer could act as arbitrator or umpire. Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 did not authorise disregard of the agreed mode of arbitration where the contract itself prescribed a mandatory and exclusive procedure for appointment. The appointment of a sole arbitrator outside the contractual framework was therefore impermissible.

Conclusion: The appointment of Justice P.K. Bahri as sole arbitrator was unsustainable and was set aside. The appellants were directed to appoint two gazetted railway officers as arbitrators.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the arbitration agreement prescribes an exclusive method and category of arbitrators, the Court cannot appoint an arbitrator in a manner inconsistent with that contractual mandate.

---