Judgment

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1.Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.

2.Noticing two different views in two decisions of this Court in Ace Pipeline Contracts (P) Ltd. v. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. (2007 (5) SCC 304) and Union of India v. Bharat Battery Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. (2007 (7) SCC 684) the matter has been referred to a larger Bench and that is how these cases are before us.

3.In both the decisions the question related to appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the ‘Act’). In Bharat Battery’s case (supra) the earlier decision in Ace Pipeline’s case (supra) was apparently not brought before the Bench as a result of which there appears to be some confusion. As noted above, the scope and ambit of Section 11(6) of the Act relating to appointment of arbitrator falls for consideration in these cases.

4.The stand of Mr. Harish N Salve appearing for some of the parties in these appeals and Mr. B. Dutta, Additional Solicitor General is that the true scope and ambit of Section 11(6) has to be considered in the background of Section 28(3) and Section 34 of the Act. According to them, the agreed procedure referred to