Arbitration tribunal appointment under Section 11(6) was rejected where the contractual scheme required a three-member tribunal.

A petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was found not maintainable on the facts presented. The court noted that, under the contractual scheme, claims above the stipulated threshold required constitution of a three-member arbitral tribunal, and the question of commencement could not be treated as arising merely on receipt of the arbitration request. It also observed that the challenge could not be sustained in the manner adopted under Section 11(6), and that the proper remedy had to be pursued before the correct forum under the applicable provision. The request for appointment of an arbitral tribunal was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was maintainable in the facts of the case, and whether the dispute could be treated as having commenced merely on receipt of the request for arbitration.

Analysis: The petition sought appointment of an arbitral tribunal on the premise that the arbitral proceedings had commenced upon receipt of the arbitration notice under Section 21. The Court held that, on the contractual scheme, where the claim exceeded the stipulated threshold, the tribunal had to be constituted by three members, and until the arbitral tribunal itself was duly constituted, the question of commencement did not arise in the manner contended. The Court also noted that the challenge presented could not be sustained under Section 11(6) in the manner adopted, and that the appropriate remedy had to be pursued before the proper forum under the correct provision of law.

Conclusion: The petition under Section 11(6) was held not maintainable, and the request for appointment of an arbitral tribunal was rejected.

---