Contractual arbitration mechanism governs; a common arbitrator cannot be imposed contrary to distinct clauses in separate agreements.

Separate dealership and financing agreements containing distinct arbitration clauses must be honoured according to their own dispute-resolution mechanisms, and a court exercising Section 11(6) power cannot recast the contractual bargain by appointing a common arbitrator for overlapping disputes. Where the clauses provide different parties, forums, and tribunal-constitution methods, a composite reference is not justified merely because the disputes may overlap. An invocation notice that is unspecific or inconsistent with the agreed procedure is also ineffective. The stated result is that requests for a common arbitrator will not be sustained when they conflict with the arbitration framework chosen in the contracts.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court could appoint a common arbitrator for disputes arising under separate agreements containing distinct arbitration clauses, and whether the invocation of arbitration contrary to the agreed contractual mechanism could be sustained.

Analysis: The agreements formed two separate contractual streams, namely dealership and financing, and each contained its own arbitration framework with different parties, forums, and constitution of tribunals. The existence of overlapping disputes did not justify ignoring the agreed dispute-resolution mechanism or severing contractual terms so as to create a composite reference. In exercise of power under Section 11(6), the Court could not recast the bargain between the parties or appoint an independent/common arbitrator contrary to the procedure stipulated in the respective arbitration clauses. The invocation notice was also found to be unspecific and not in accordance with the agreed procedure.

Conclusion: The request for appointment of a common arbitrator was rejected, and the petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court must give effect to the arbitral mechanism chosen by the parties and cannot impose a composite arbitration or appoint an arbitrator in a manner that rewrites distinct contractual arbitration clauses.

---