Appointment of arbitrators
Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 deals with appointment of arbitrators. A person of any nationality may be an arbitrator, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. The Act came into force on 22 Aug 1996.
(1) A person of any nationality may be an arbitrator, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.
(2) Subject to sub-section (6), the parties are free to agree on a procedure for appointing the arbitrator or arbitrators.
(3) Failing any agreement referred to in sub-section (2), in an arbitration with three arbitrators, each party shall appoint one arbitrator, and the two appointed arbitrators shall appoint the third arbitrator who shall act as the presiding arbitrator.
(4) If the appointment procedure in sub-section (3) applies and—
(a) a party fails to appoint an arbitrator within thirty days from the receipt of a request to do so from the other party; or
(b) the two appointed arbitrators fail to agree on the third arbitrator within thirty days from the date of their appointment,
the appointment shall be made, upon request of a party, by 1[the Supreme Court or, as the case may be, the High Court or any person or institution designated by such Court];
(5) Failing any agreement referred to in sub-section (2), in an arbitration with a sole arbitrator, if the parties fail to agree on the arbitrator within thirty days from receipt of a request by one party from the other party to so agree the appointment shall be made, upon request of a party, by 1[the Supreme Court or, as the case may be, the High Court or any person or institution designated by such Court].
(6) Where, under an appointment procedure agreed upon by the parties,—
(a) a party fails to act as required under that procedure; or
(b) the parties, or the two appointed arbitrators, fail to reach an agreement expected of them under that procedure; or
(c) a person, including an institution, fails to perform any function entrusted to him or it under that procedure,
a party may request 1[the Supreme Court or, as the case may be, the High Court or any person or institution designated by such Court] to take the necessary measure, unless the agreement on the appointment procedure provides other means for securing the appointment.
2[(6A) The Supreme Court or, as the case may be, the High Court, while considering any application under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) or sub-section (6), shall, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any Court, confine to the examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement.
(6B) The designation of any person or institution by the Supreme Court or, as the case may be, the High Court, for the purposes of this section shall not be regarded as a delegation of judicial power by the Supreme Court or the High Court.]
(7) A decision on a matter entrusted by sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) or sub-section (6) to 3[the Supreme Court or, as the case may be, the High Court or the person or institution designated by such Court is final and no appeal including Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against such decision].
4 (8) The Supreme Court or, as the case may be, the High Court or the person or institution designated by such Court, before appointing an arbitrator, shall seek a disclosure in writing from the prospective arbitrator in terms of sub-section (1) of section 12, and have due regard to—
(a) any qualifications required for the arbitrator by the agreement of the parties; and
(b) the contents of the disclosure and other considerations as are likely to secure the appointment of an independent and impartial arbitrator.]
(9) In the case of appointment of sole or third arbitrator in an international commercial arbitration, 5[the Supreme Court or the person or institution designated by that Court] may appoint an arbitrator of a nationality other than the nationalities of the parties where the parties belong to different nationalities.
6[(10) The Supreme Court or, as the case may be, the High Court, may make such scheme as the said Court may deem appropriate for dealing with matters entrusted by sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) or sub-section (6), to it.]
(11) Where more than one request has been made under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) or sub-section (6) to the Chief Justices of different High Courts or their designates, 7[different High Courts or their designates, the High Court or its designate to whom the request has been first made] under the relevant sub-section shall alone be competent to decide on the request.
8[(12) (a) Where the matters referred to in sub-sections (4), (5), (6), (7), (8) and sub-section (10) arise in an international commercial arbitration, the reference to the "Supreme Court or, as the case may be, the High Court" in those sub-sections shall be construed as a reference to the "Supreme Court"; and
(b) Where the matters referred to in sub-sections (4), (5), (6), (7), (8) and sub-section (10) arise in any other arbitration, the reference to the Supreme Court or, as the case may be, the High Court in those sub-sections shall be construed as a reference to the "High Court" within whose local limits the principal Civil Court referred to in clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 2 is situate, and where the High Court itself is the Court referred to in that clause, to that High Court.]
9[(13) An application made under this section for appointment of an arbitrator or arbitrators shall be disposed of by the Supreme Court or the High Court or the person or institution designated by such Court, as the case may be, as expeditiously as possible and an endeavour shall be made to dispose of the matter within a period of sixty days from the date of service of notice on the opposite party.
(14) For the purpose of determination of the fees of the arbitral tribunal and the manner of its payment to the arbitral tribunal, the High Court may frame such rules as may be necessary, after taking into consideration the rates specified in the Fourth Schedule.
Explanation.— For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that this sub-section shall not apply to international commercial arbitration and in arbitrations (other than international commercial arbitration) in case where parties have agreed for determination of fees as per the rules of an arbitral institution.]
Section 11, The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act 26 of 1996).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Cox and Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Constitution Bench: the group-of-companies doctrine is part of Indian arbitration law. A non-signatory may be bound by an arbitration agreement if there is a clear intention, deduced from the composite transaction, common subject-matter and conduct of the parties. Referral courts under ss.8/11 make only a prima facie enquiry; the tribunal decides joinder. Chloro Controls is retained but restated.
On this section: s.11 referral court makes only a prima facie joinder enquiry; the tribunal decides the non-signatory issue.
-
Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Four-fold test of non-arbitrability. Referral courts under ss.8/11 do a limited prima facie review; the arbitral tribunal is the default forum for the full enquiry (kompetenz-kompetenz), subject to rare cases of deadwood claims.
On this section: s.11 appointment is a limited prima facie exercise; not a mini-trial of the dispute.
-
Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A person who is ineligible to be an arbitrator (s.12(5) / Seventh Schedule) also cannot nominate the sole arbitrator. Unilateral appointment by an interested party is void. TRF Ltd. principle extended to nomination.
On this section: s.11 court appointment follows when the contractual nominator is ineligible under s.12(5).
-
Bhandari Udyog LTD vs Industrial Facilitation Council
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside an arbitral award must be filed before the court subordinate to the same High Court that referred the matter to arbitration under Section 11. Where the arbitration was conducted within the jurisdiction of a court subordinate to one High Court, an application under Section 34 cannot be entertained by a court subordinate to a different High Court, as this would violate Section 42 of the Act and the principle of exclusive jurisdiction established through the arbitration agreement and the place of conduct of arbitration. General jurisdictional provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (Sections 15-20) do not override this principle where an exclusive jurisdiction agreement is established.
On this section: Provision dealing with appointment of arbitrator by the court; the referring court (Karnataka High Court) should be the forum for subsequent challenges to the award under Section 34
-
Indian Oil Corp. LTD vs Sps Engineering LTD
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The scope of jurisdiction of the Chief Justice or Designate under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is limited to examining: (1) whether the applicant has approached the appropriate High Court, and (2) whether an arbitration agreement exists and the applicant is a party to it. The Chief Justice or Designate may optionally examine only whether a claim is a patently dead (long-barred) claim when it is evidently and undisputedly time-barred, but should not examine the merits of the claim, res judicata, general tenability, limitation issues involving disputed questions, or whether a claim falls within the arbitration clause. Such threshold examination and rejection of claims on grounds of res judicata or contested limitation is outside the jurisdiction of the Chief Justice or Designate and must be left exclusively to the arbitral tribunal. Additionally, an application under Section 11 should not be rejected for procedural defects in pleading or failure to provide details and documents that are normally pleaded before an arbitral tribunal.
On this section: Section 11 pertains to the appointment of arbitrators. The Court examined the scope of jurisdiction of the Chief Justice or Designate in considering applications under Section 11. The Court held that the jurisdiction is limited to determining: (a) whether the applicant has approached the appropriate High Court; (b) whether there is an arbitration agreement and whether the applicant is a party to it. The Chief Justice may optionally decide whether a claim is a dead (long-barred) claim, but should not examine merits, res judicata, or general tenability of claims. The Court clarified that thresho
-
North Western Railway General Manager vs Anil Trading Company Proprietor Shri Dinesh Kumar Khinchi S/o Shri Chandra Ram
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where arbitration request predates Amendment Act 2015 (23-10-2015), proceedings are governed by pre-amended Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. In such cases: (1) Execution of 'no claim' or 'no dues' certificates does not automatically bar arbitration if executed under economic duress or coercion; (2) Chief Justice/designate must first ensure agreed arbitration appointment procedure is exhausted before invoking Section 11(6); (3) Deviation from agreed procedure is permissible only when independence/impartiality of agreed arbitrator is in justified doubt or agreed Tribunal has failed to function; (4) Small/petty contractors required to execute no claim certificates as condition precedent to release of admitted payments constitute cases of presumed coercion absent clear evidence of voluntary accord and satisfaction; (5) Arbitral disputes subsist despite no claim certificates when circumstances indicate economic duress, and such disputes are arbitrable notwithstanding purported full and final discharge.
On this section: Examined power of Chief Justice or designate to appoint arbitrator when parties fail to appoint or reach agreement; noted that agreed procedure must be exhausted first before resorting to Section 11(6); conditions (a), (b), (c) require failure under agreed procedure before court intervention; due regard must be given to qualifications required by agreement and independence considerations
-
Union of India General Manager vs Parmar Construction Company Partner Achhar Singh Parmer
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
1. Where an arbitration request is received before the Arbitration And Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 came into force (23rd October 2015), the arbitral proceedings are governed by the pre-amended Act, 1996, and the Amendment Act provisions cannot be invoked retroactively unless parties explicitly otherwise agree. 2. Signing of a 'no-claim certificate' does not per se discharge the arbitration agreement or eliminate arbitrable disputes; if the certificate is executed under economic duress or coercion (such as making payment of admitted bill amounts conditional on signing the certificate), the discharge is involuntary and does not constitute valid accord and satisfaction, leaving arbitral disputes arbitrable. 3. The Chief Justice or designate, while exercising powers under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, 1996, must first ensure that the appointment procedure agreed upon by the parties in the arbitration clause is exhausted before invoking Section 11(6) to appoint an independent arbitrator; the agreed procedure must be given effect as closely as possible, and the Court is the last resort. 4. Only in circumstances where the independence and impartiality of the person designated in the arbitration agreement is in doubt (with reasons recorded), or where the Arbitral Tribunal appointed per the agreement has failed to function and discharge its obligations, may the Chief Justice appoint an independent arbitrator as an alternative; mere failure to appoint by the agreed party does not trigger independent appointment power.
On this section: Chief Justice or designate powers to appoint arbitrator when party fails to act under agreed procedure or person fails to perform function entrusted. Court must first ensure agreed procedure is exhausted and cumulative requirements of independence and contractual qualification are satisfied.
-
Union of India General Manager vs Rajendra Prasad Bansal Partner
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where arbitration request is received before Amendment Act 2015 comes into force, pre-amended provisions of 1996 Act apply to the arbitration proceedings unless parties expressly agree otherwise. No-claim certificates executed by contractors under economic duress (where payments withheld unless certificates signed) do not bar arbitration. Courts must exhaust agreed appointment procedures before appointing independent arbitrators under Section 11(6), and should only depart from such procedures when genuine grounds exist (bias or tribunal failure), not merely because amended statutory requirements prefer independent arbitrators. The appointment procedure agreed upon in contracts must be given priority and effect to the extent possible before court intervention.
On this section: Chief Justice or designate's power to appoint arbitrator when party fails to act under agreed appointment procedure; Court's discretion and limitations in exercising this power
-
Union of India General Manager vs Maya Construction Pvt. Ltd. Director B L. Jhedu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a request for arbitration is received before the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 comes into force (October 23, 2015), the arbitral proceedings are governed by the pre-amended Act under Section 26 of the Amendment Act. No-claim certificates obtained as a condition precedent for release of admitted dues constitute discharge under economic duress and do not bar arbitration. The Chief Justice or designate must first ensure exhaustion of the contractually agreed arbitrator appointment procedure before invoking Section 11(6) to appoint an independent arbitrator, and can only do so if the agreed procedure fails, or the appointed arbitrator shows bias or failure to perform, or other compelling circumstances warrant such deviation. The agreed procedures in contracts must be respected and given effect as closely as possible, with the court acting as a measure of last resort.
On this section: Examined the scope of Chief Justice's power to appoint arbitrators when parties fail to appoint under agreed procedure. Court held that agreed procedure must be given precedence and court is last resort. Three clauses (a), (b), (c) interpreted to emphasize exhaustion of contractual remedies first.
-
North Western Railway General Manager vs Bharat Spun Pipes and Construction Company Partner Dinesh Chandra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an arbitration agreement contains a specific procedure for appointment of arbitrators and a request for arbitration is received before the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 came into force (23rd October 2015), the arbitration shall proceed under pre-amended 1996 Act provisions. The Chief Justice or designate, exercising power under Section 11(6), shall not appoint an independent arbitrator bypassing the agreed appointment procedure unless: (a) the party responsible for appointment has failed to appoint within stipulated time and the matter cannot be further delayed, or (b) the agreed Tribunal, once appointed, fails to function or perform its obligations, or (c) prima facie evidence of bias, mala fides, or lack of independence in the person nominated is established before appointment is made. Mere execution of a no-claim certificate does not discharge a contract or bar arbitration where prima facie evidence of economic duress or coercion in its execution is present; such invalidity questions are arbitrable and must be decided by the arbitrator. The Court must first exhaust agreed procedures before resorting to alternative arrangements.
On this section: Provides framework for Court intervention when appointed person fails to act or parties fail to agree under appointment procedure; Court may appoint arbitrator but must respect agreed procedures and qualifications to extent possible.
-
Union of India General Manager vs Sri Harsha Constructions
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The High Court erred in invoking the amended provisions of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act 2015 for appointing an independent arbitrator when the request for arbitration was received before October 23, 2015 (the commencement date of the Amendment Act), as Section 26 of the Amendment Act clearly provides that the amended provisions do not apply to arbitral proceedings commenced before the commencement of the Amendment Act unless the parties otherwise agree. Furthermore, the High Court should have exhausted the mutually agreed appointment procedure prescribed under Clause 64(3) of the General Conditions of Contract before invoking Section 11(6) to appoint an independent arbitrator, as the agreed procedure must be given effect as closely as possible and the Court is only the last resort when the agreed remedies fail. Lastly, while no-claim certificates may ordinarily bar arbitration when they result from accord and satisfaction, in cases where the contractor signs such certificates under economic duress by conditioning payment of admitted dues on signature, the certificate does not discharge the contract and the disputes remain arbitrable before an arbitrator who can examine the validity of the certificate on the basis of coercion or undue influence.
On this section: The Court extensively analyzed the structure of Section 11(6) which provides three grounds (a), (b), and (c) for Chief Justice intervention. Court held that clause (a) refers to party failing to act as required, (b) to failure to reach agreement, and (c) to failure to perform function entrusted. Court emphasized that before invoking Section 11(6), the agreed procedure must first be exhausted and corrective measures attempted. The Court noted that subsection (8) requires due regard to qualifications required by agreement and considerations for independent and impartial arbitrator, and these are
-
North Western Railway Thr. General Manager vs Bharat Spun Pipes and Construction Company Thr. Partner Dinesh Chandra Gupta S/o Late R. K. Gupta
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an arbitration request is received before the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act 2015 came into force on 23-10-2015, the pre-amended provisions of the 1996 Act apply (Section 21 read with Section 26 of Amendment Act 2015). In such cases, the appointment procedure agreed in the arbitration clause must be exhausted first before the Chief Justice or designate appoints an independent arbitrator under Section 11(6). The Chief Justice or designate may deviate from the agreed procedure only when justifiable doubts exist about the independence and impartiality of the designated arbitrator, or when the agreed procedure has demonstrably failed. Furthermore, the execution of a 'no claim certificate' does not bar arbitration when the certificate is signed under economic duress (i.e., when a contractor's final payment is withheld unless the certificate is signed), as such circumstances do not constitute genuine accord and satisfaction.
On this section: Examined circumstances when Chief Justice or designate can intervene in appointment of arbitrator; held that intervention requires failure of agreed procedure, not mere preference for independent appointment
-
Union of India Thr. General Manager vs Rajendra Prasad Bansal Thr. Partner Rajendra Prasad Bansal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where an arbitration agreement prescribes a specific procedure for appointment of arbitrators and one party fails to appoint within the agreed timeframe, the Chief Justice or designate exercising power under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in cases where arbitration was requested before the Arbitration and Conciliation Amendment Act 2015 came into force) must first exhaust the agreed appointment procedure by directing the defaulting party to appoint arbitrators in accordance with the contract terms. Only when the agreed procedure is genuinely impossible to perform, or when appointed arbitrators are shown to suffer from demonstrable bias or partiality, or when an appointed tribunal has significantly failed to function and perform its duties, may the Court appoint an alternative independent arbitrator. The mere fact that arbitrators would be drawn from the government establishment that is party to the contract is not, without more, a ground to bypass the agreed procedure and appoint independent arbitrators. Similarly, the execution of a no claim certificate by a contractor, even in a prescribed format, does not constitute an absolute bar to arbitration; if the certificate was signed under economic duress (such as withholding of admitted payment amounts until the certificate is signed), the contractor retains the right to challenge its validity before the arbitrator on grounds of fraud, coercion, or undue influence, and this question must be decided by the arbitrator in the first instance, not foreclosed by the court.
On this section: Defines the circumstances under which a party may request the Chief Justice or designate to take necessary measures for appointment of arbitrator when appointment procedures fail. Applied to determine the scope of court intervention in arbitrator appointment.
-
Dani Wooltex Corporation vs Sheil Properties Private Limited
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The power under clause (c) of subsection (2) of Section 32 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, can be exercised only when the Arbitral Tribunal records its satisfaction based on material on record that the continuation of proceedings has become unnecessary or impossible. Abandonment of a claim can be a ground to invoke this power, but abandonment cannot be readily inferred. Abandonment can be express or implied, but implied abandonment requires admitted or proved facts that are so clinching and convincing that the only inference which can be drawn is of abandonment. Mere failure of a claimant to request the Arbitral Tribunal to fix a date for hearing, per se, is no ground to conclude that the proceedings have become unnecessary or that the claim has been abandoned. It is the Arbitral Tribunal's duty to fix meetings and hearing dates, and it cannot abdicate this duty by requiring parties to request such dates. The Arbitral Tribunal cannot exercise its power under Section 32(2)(c) casually or without proper factual foundation, as doing so would defeat the very object of the Arbitration Act.
On this section: Court's power to appoint an Arbitrator when parties do not agree on appointment
-
Sgepl Infrastructure Pvt. LTD vs Ind Synergy Limited
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a sole arbitrator appointed by Court order recuses himself from arbitration proceedings, the Supreme Court possesses the jurisdiction and power under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966, to appoint a replacement arbitrator to ensure the continuance and completion of the arbitration process without undue delay. Such appointment may be made on the application of a party to the arbitration.
On this section: Applied to justify the appointment of a new sole arbitrator as the Supreme Court possesses the power to appoint an arbitrator under this section when the originally appointed arbitrator is unable or unwilling to continue
-
Union of India General Manager vs Kewal Construction Co. (jv)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an arbitration request is received before Arbitration and Conciliation Amendment Act 2015 came into force on 23rd October 2015 the pre-amendment Act applies and Amendment Act provisions do not retroactively apply. The High Court must first ensure the contractually agreed appointment procedure for arbitrators is exhausted before exercising power under Section 11(6) to appoint an independent arbitrator. A No Claim Certificate signed by a contractor does not bar arbitration and constitute full discharge of contract if the contractor establishes prima facie that the certificate was signed under financial duress coercion or undue influence as a condition precedent for release of payment. The agreed arbitration agreement survives and remains enforceable when the No Claim Certificate is obtained not by free consent but under economic compulsion by the employer withholding payment.
On this section: Power of Chief Justice or designate to appoint arbitrator when party fails to act under agreed procedure or person fails to perform function entrusted - Court emphasized agreed procedure must be exhausted first before invoking Section 11(6)
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 11
What have the courts held on Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act?
Cox and Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd. (06 Dec 2023) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.11 referral court makes only a prima facie joinder enquiry; the tribunal decides the non-signatory issue. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2011 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Arbitration Act 11, section 11 Arbitration Act, section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. People searching for it also type arbitration act 11 of 1995 and arbitration act 11 6. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Cox and Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd. (06 Dec 2023).
What should I read with Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 2 (Definitions), section 12 (Grounds for challenge), so none of them can safely be read on its own.
When did Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act come into force?
Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, commonly called appointment of arbitrator, and cited as Arbitration Act 11, came into force on 22 Aug 1996, having been enacted on 16 Aug 1996. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 8. Power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement1029 words
- 34. Application for setting aside arbitral awards861 words
- 2. Definitions732 words
- 29A. Time limit for arbitral award635 words
- 57. Conditions for enforcement of foreign awards519 words
- 48. Conditions for enforcement of foreign awards493 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.