The court can appoint a sole arbitrator despite an arbitration clause specifying multiple arbitrators if the parties fail to make the necessary appointments, promoting efficiency and reducing costs.

JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

1. Heard Shri Abhishek Dwivedi, Advocate holding brief of Shri Vipul Rai, the learned counsel for the applicant and Shri S.K. Khare, the learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the applicant is seeking appointment of an arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes between the parties arising out of a contract dated 06.11.2015.

3. Clause 25.1.3 of the agreement contains an arbitration clause. The applicant had requested the opposite parties for appointment of arbitrator as per the aforesaid arbitration clause.

4. On 06.12.2024, the Executive Engineer, Construction Division-II, Public Works Department wrote a letter to the Superintending Engineer, Hamirpur Circle, Public Works Department, Hamirpur recommended appointment of an arbitrator as per the Clause 25.1.3 but when arbitrator was not appointed in spite of this recommendation, the applicant has filed this application.

5. The opposite parties have filed objections against the application which principally contains pleas of the opposite parties disputing the correctness of the claims of the applicant. However, while deciding an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, this Court is not required to examine correctness of the claims of the applicant and that has to be done by the arbitrator.

6. The State has not disputed the existence of arbitration agreement and it has not disputed that through the aforesaid letter dated 06.12.2024, the Executive Engineer had himself requested the Superintending Engineer to appoint an arbitrator.

7. As arbitrator has not been appointed by the opposite parties, occasion has arose for this Court to appoint an arbitrator.

8. The learned counsel for the applicant has stated that although the arbitration clause contains a provision for arbitration by a panel of three arbitrators, the opposite party has not appointed the arbitrators in terms of the aforesaid clause. Now, that the Court has to appoint the arbitrator, the applicant requests that to reduce the cost of arbitration, a single arbitrator be appointed in place of a Tribunal consisting of three arbitrators.

9. In Union of India v. Singh Builders Syndicate : (2009) 4 SCC 523 , the appellant had challenged an order of the Delhi High Court appointing a retired Judge of the High Court as sole arbitrator to decide the disputes arising in respect of a construction contract between the Northern Railways and the respondent, whereas arbitration clause in the contract between the parties required two serving gazetted railway officers of equal status being appointed as arbitrators, one by the contractor from a panel made available by the General Manager of the Northern Railways and the other by the Northern Railways, and the two arbitrators so appointed, in turn appointing an umpire. The High Court was of the view that the matter was pending since 1999 and that the cumbersome process of constituting an Arbitral Tribunal in terms of the arbitration agreement and the delays on the part of the Railways in complying with the provisions of the arbitration agreement, led to the arbitration becoming virtually a non-starter and no useful purpose would be served by reconstituting a three-Member Arbitral Tribunal. Therefore, the High Court allowed the petition and appointed a retired Judge of the Delhi High Court as the arbitrator. The said order was challenged by filing an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court The question that arises f