Arbitrator appointment must follow the pre-amendment law and the contractually agreed procedure, not an independent court-nominated arbitrator.

Requests for appointment of an arbitrator made before the 2015 amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 were to be examined under the unamended statute, because Section 21 governed the proceedings as invoked. Where the contract prescribed a specific appointment mechanism under Clause 64 of the General Conditions of Contract, that contractual procedure had to be followed and the court should not substitute an independent arbitrator. The objections concerning final bill settlement and no claim certificates were left open for the arbitral tribunal. The impugned judgments were set aside and the contractual mode of appointment was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the requests for appointment of arbitrator had to be examined under the unamended Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 because they were made before the 2015 amendment came into force; (ii) Whether the High Court was justified in appointing an independent arbitrator instead of following the contractual procedure under Clause 64 of the General Conditions of Contract.

Issue (i): Whether the requests for appointment of arbitrator had to be examined under the unamended Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 because they were made before the 2015 amendment came into force.

Analysis: The requests for reference to arbitration were made before the 2015 amendment commenced. The statutory position under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 required the arbitral proceedings to be governed by the law in force when arbitration was invoked, unless the parties otherwise agreed. The later amendment therefore had no application to the appointment proceedings.

Conclusion: The matter had to be examined under the unamended Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court was justified in appointing an independent arbitrator instead of following the contractual procedure under Clause 64 of the General Conditions of Contract.

Analysis: The contract contained a specific mechanism for appointment of arbitrator through the Railway administration. The governing principle was that where the agreement prescribes a named or contractual mode of appointment, that procedure should ordinarily be followed. The Court held that the High Court was not justified in bypassing the contractual framework and appointing an independent arbitrator. The objections relating to final bill settlement and no claim certificates were left open for consideration by the arbitrator.

Conclusion: The High Court ought to have directed appointment in accordance with the contractual arbitration clause, and the appointment of an independent arbitrator was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgments were set aside and the appeals succeeded by restoring the contractual mode of appointment of arbitrator.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the arbitration request predates the 2015 amendment, the appointment process is governed by the unamended Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and a court should ordinarily respect the contractually stipulated mechanism for appointment of arbitrator rather than substitute an independent arbitrator.

---