Arbitrability objections cannot reopen a final arbitrator appointment after voluntary counterclaim submission establishes consent to arbitration.

An arbitrator's appointment under Section 11 has statutory finality on matters within the appointing authority's competence and cannot be reopened before the arbitral tribunal under Section 16. A party that seeks leave to file a counterclaim before the arbitrator and subsequently files it accepts the arbitral forum. That conduct constitutes submission of disputes to arbitration under Section 7(4)(c), regardless of whether the underlying contractual clause independently qualifies as an arbitration agreement. The State therefore could not challenge the appointment or deny arbitrability after voluntarily submitting its counterclaim.

---

---

Issues: Whether a party may challenge the arbitrability of disputes before the arbitral tribunal under Section 16 after the High Court has appointed the arbitrator under Section 11, and whether the parties' conduct independently established submission to arbitration.

Analysis: An appointment made under Section 11 carries statutory finality on matters within the appointing authority's competence and cannot be reopened by the arbitral tribunal under Section 16. The State had also sought and obtained liberty to lodge a counterclaim before the arbitrator, thereafter submitted its own counterclaim, and thereby accepted the arbitral forum. This conduct constituted submission of disputes to arbitration and satisfied Section 7(4)(c), irrespective of whether the contractual clause itself was an arbitration clause.

Conclusion: The State could not impeach the arbitrator's appointment or deny arbitrability after voluntarily submitting its counterclaim to the arbitrator; the issue was decided against the State.

---