Contractual arbitration timetable must be exhausted before Section 11(6) appointment; premature request cannot defeat the appointing party's right.

A time-bound contractual arbitration procedure must be exhausted before a Section 11(6) request can be entertained. Where the clause required a demand notice, a 60-day response period, and only then a panel-based appointment process, a request filed before expiry of that period was premature. The Court held that the Railways had not forfeited their contractual right to appoint an arbitrator because that right had not yet matured when the application was made. The appointment of a former Judge could not therefore stand, and the matter had to proceed first under the agreed arbitration mechanism.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was premature in view of the contractual requirement of waiting for 60 days and the panel procedure for appointment of arbitrators; (ii) whether the designated Judge was justified in holding that the Railways had forfeited their right to appoint an arbitrator and in appointing a former Judge as arbitrator.

Issue (i): Whether the application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was premature in view of the contractual requirement of waiting for 60 days and the panel procedure for appointment of arbitrators.

Analysis: The arbitration clause required the contractor to serve a demand notice and obliged the Railways to respond within 60 days by sending a panel of eligible officers. Only thereafter could the contractor suggest names for appointment. The application under Section 11(6) was filed before expiry of the agreed 60-day period, while the Railways had in fact sent a panel within that period. The contractual timetable was binding and had to be respected before resorting to court appointment.

Conclusion: The application under Section 11(6) was premature and could not be entertained on the basis that the Railways had defaulted.

Issue (ii): Whether the designated Judge was justified in holding that the Railways had forfeited their right to appoint an arbitrator and in appointing a former Judge as arbitrator.

Analysis: Forfeiture of the other party's contractual right to appoint an arbitrator arises only when the contractual procedure has been ignored after the right to act has matured. Since the agreed 60-day period had not expired when the application was made, the Railways had not forfeited their right. The decision to ignore the contractual mechanism and proceed to appoint a former Judge therefore proceeded on an appreciation of the arbitration clause and of the governing law.

Conclusion: The finding of forfeiture was unsustainable, and the appointment made under the impugned order could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the parties were directed to proceed afresh in accordance with the contractual arbitration procedure before any resort to further remedies under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a contract prescribes a specific time-bound procedure for constituting the arbitral tribunal, a Section 11(6) request made before that procedure is exhausted is premature, and the other party's right to appoint an arbitrator is not forfeited until the contractual period for action has expired.

---