Arbitrator appointment under Section 11(6) upheld where an arbitration clause and live GST dispute were admitted.

An arbitration clause in the contract and a live dispute over a GST claim justified constitution of an arbitral tribunal under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondents contested the claim on merits but raised no objection to appointment of an arbitrator, and the pleadings disclosed no procedural impediment to arbitration. In these circumstances, the Court held that appointment was warranted, subject to the mandatory written disclosure required under Section 11(8). The matter therefore proceeded to arbitration for adjudication of the contractual dispute.

---

---

Issues: Whether an arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the light of the admitted arbitration clause and the existence of a dispute between the parties.

Analysis: The application was founded on an arbitration clause in the agreement and on a dispute regarding the GST claim arising out of the contract. The respondents resisted the claim on merits but did not raise any objection to the appointment of an arbitrator. The pleadings showed the existence of a live dispute and there was no procedural impediment to constituting the arbitral tribunal. In these circumstances, appointment of an arbitrator was warranted under the statute, subject to the statutory disclosure under Section 11(8).

Conclusion: An arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate the dispute between the parties, subject to disclosure in writing under Section 11(8) of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an arbitration agreement exists and a live dispute is shown, and no objection is raised to the appointment itself, the Court may appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 subject to the mandatory disclosure requirement.

---