Unilateral appointment of an ineligible arbitrator bars enforcement where no written waiver exists after disputes arise.

A sole arbitrator appointed unilaterally by one party was ineligible under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act because no express post-dispute written waiver by the other party existed. Waiver could not be inferred from conduct or silence, and an award made by an ineligible arbitrator was treated as a nullity incapable of enforcement under Section 36. The challenge to the order refusing enforcement therefore failed, and the delay in filing the appeal was also held insufficiently explained.

---

---

Issues: Whether an arbitral award rendered by a sole arbitrator appointed unilaterally by one party, and found to be ineligible under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, could be enforced notwithstanding the absence of a written waiver by the other party.

Analysis: Section 12(5) creates a statutory bar against the appointment of an ineligible arbitrator. Any waiver of that ineligibility must be by an express agreement in writing entered into after disputes have arisen. Waiver cannot be inferred from conduct or from failure to object. An arbitrator who is ineligible under Section 12(5) lacks inherent jurisdiction, and an award rendered by such an arbitrator is a nullity and cannot be enforced under Section 36. The appeal was also belated, and the explanation for delay was found insufficient.

Conclusion: The award was not enforceable, and the challenge to the order rejecting enforcement failed.

---