Consent is essential in private arbitration; unilateral appointment and reference without it leave the award void ab initio.

Under the Arbitration Act, 1940, a general clause stating that disputes will be settled by arbitration does not by itself authorise one party to unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator or unilaterally refer disputes. Where no arbitrator or appointment mechanism is specified, the appointment and reference must be made by consent, and if consent is absent the proper course is recourse to the Court under the Act. Consent is the foundation of jurisdiction in private arbitration; mere silence by the other side is not consent. An arbitrator acting on unilateral appointment and reference has no jurisdiction, so the proceedings and award are void ab initio and a nullity.

---

---

Issues: Whether, under the Arbitration Act, 1940, a party could unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator and unilaterally refer disputes to that arbitrator under a general arbitration clause, and whether the resulting award was valid.

Analysis: A bare clause providing that disputes shall be settled through arbitration as per the Indian Arbitration Act does not itself authorise one party to appoint the arbitrator and refer disputes without the other party's consent. Under the statutory scheme, where no arbitrator is named and no mode of appointment is provided, the appointment and reference must be consensual, failing which the proper course is recourse to the Court under the Act. Consent is the foundation of jurisdiction in private arbitration, and mere inaction by the other side does not amount to consent. An arbitrator acting on a unilateral appointment and unilateral reference derives no jurisdiction, and proceedings conducted on that basis are wholly without authority.

Conclusion: The unilateral appointment, unilateral reference, ex parte proceedings, and award were void ab initio and a nullity, and the objection based on limitation did not save them.

---