Arbitrator appointment rights are forfeited once Section 11(6) is invoked; later unilateral appointment is ineffective.

Under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the opposite party's contractual right to appoint a sole arbitrator is forfeited if it does not act before the Section 11(6) application is filed, and a later unilateral appointment has no legal effect. Section 11(8) requires regard to contractual qualifications and the need for an independent, impartial arbitrator; where no special qualification is prescribed, an appointment by the defaulting party's own officer does not meet that standard. The refusal to appoint an arbitrator was therefore set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration of the appointment request.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Corporation forfeited its right to appoint the arbitrator after failing to act under the agreed procedure until the application under Section 11(6) was filed, and whether the later appointment had any legal effect; (ii) whether the Chief Justice was required to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) in the facts of the case, having regard to Section 11(8).

Issue (i): Whether the Corporation forfeited its right to appoint the arbitrator after failing to act under the agreed procedure until the application under Section 11(6) was filed, and whether the later appointment had any legal effect.

Analysis: The agreement provided a specific procedure for appointment of the sole arbitrator by an officer of the Corporation. The dealer demanded appointment, but the Corporation did not act until after the dealer had already invoked Section 11(6). The governing principle was that the opposite party's right to appoint continues for thirty days, but if no appointment is made before the application under Section 11(6), that right stands forfeited. An appointment made after the filing of the Section 11(6) application does not revive the lost right or cure the default.

Conclusion: The Corporation had forfeited its right to appoint the arbitrator, and the subsequent appointment was of no legal consequence.

Issue (ii): Whether the Chief Justice was required to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) in the facts of the case, having regard to Section 11(8).

Analysis: Section 11(8) requires due regard to contractual qualifications and the need to secure an independent and impartial arbitrator. No special qualification was prescribed in the agreement. Once the Corporation had forfeited its right, appointment of an officer of the Corporation would not satisfy the requirement of independence and impartiality. The Chief Justice therefore ought to have exercised jurisdiction under Section 11(6) to make an appropriate appointment.

Conclusion: The Chief Justice ought to have appointed an arbitrator under Section 11(6), and Section 11(8) did not assist the Corporation.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the refusal to appoint an arbitrator was set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration of the appointment application in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the opposite party's contractual right to appoint an arbitrator is forfeited if it fails to act before the Section 11(6) application is filed, and any subsequent unilateral appointment is ineffective.

---