1. Petition under Section 11 of the 1996 Act for appointment of an arbitrator after earlier awards were set aside as unilateral. (Para 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 20417
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J
Tewatia Construction Pvt Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Public Works Department Govt of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
ARB.P. 1212/2026 | ARB.P. 1216/2026
Important Points
Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by a party interested in the outcome of the dispute is void and unenforceable, violating principles of impartiality and procedural equality; however, the substantive agreement to arbitrate remains valid.
Subject
Civil - Arbitration
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Arbitration - Appointment of Arbitrator - Unilateral appointment - A clause permitting a party interested in the outcome of the dispute to unilaterally appoint an arbitrator is void and unenforceable as it violates the principles of impartiality and independence. (Para 9, 11)
(B) Contractual Clauses - Severability - Clause 25 of GCC - Where a portion of the arbitration clause vests exclusive appointment power in one party, such portion must be severed as void, while the substantive agreement to refer disputes to arbitration remains valid. (Para 11, 12)
Issues: Whether the unilateral appointment of an arbitrator under Clause 25 of the GCC is legally permissible.
(B) Contractual Clauses - Severability - Clause 25 of GCC - Where a portion of the arbitration clause vests exclusive appointment power in one party, such portion must be severed as void, while the substantive agreement to refer disputes to arbitration remains valid. (Para 11, 12)
Issues: Whether the unilateral appointment of an arbitrator under Clause 25 of the GCC is legally permissible.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Avinash Trivedi, Anurag Kaushik, Rahul Aggarwal
For the Respondents: Sweety Singh
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Avinash Trivedi, Anurag Kaushik, Rahul Aggarwal
For the Respondents: Sweety Singh
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued unilateral appointment clause is void; respondent could not dispute that the appointment was legally impermissible. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. Clause 25 vesting sole appointment power in one party is void and unenforceable, violating principles of impartiality and equal treatment. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
4. A clause permitting unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by a party is void and must be severed, but the arbitration agreement remains valid. (Para 11 , 12 )
5. Appointed an independent sole arbitrator under the aegis of DIAC; petitions disposed of. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
6. Is a unilateral appointment clause in an arbitration agreement valid?
No. Such a clause is void and unenforceable because it creates bias and violates the principles of impartiality and equal treatment of parties. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
7. Can the invalid part of a unilateral appointment clause be severed while preserving the arbitration agreement?
Yes. The portion of the clause vesting exclusive appointment power in one party is severed as void, but the substantive agreement to arbitrate remains valid and enforceable. (Para 11 , 12 )
8. How should a court proceed under Section 11(6) when a unilateral appointment clause is invalid?
The court must appoint an independent and impartial arbitrator to ensure procedural equality and uphold the objective of alternative dispute resolution. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
JUDGEMENT
JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)
I.A. 19287/2026 (Exemption) in ARB.P. 1212/2026
I.A. 19432/2026 (Exemption) in ARB.P. 1216/2026
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Applications stand disposed of.
ARB.P. 1212/2026 & ARB.P. 1216/2026
3. ARB.P. 1212/2026 is filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘1996 Act’) for appointment of an Arbitrator.
4. The disputes, which are sought to be referred for arbitration, as pleaded in the petition, emanate from Letter of Acceptance dated 05.03.2016 in respect of work of “Construction of 177 Nos additional Class Rooms in 04 Nos. school buildings under EO Zone 14 & 16 of DDE (West-A) (Priority-1) (SH: C/o Main SPS type Buildings i/c internal & External water supply, sanitary installation and electrical installation, development of site and Fire Fighting system etc.) School of Ramesh Nagar & Patel Nagar (Package-B)”. Disputes having arisen, Petitioner wrote to the Chief Engineer of the Respondent vide letter dated 20.10.2021 to release the outstanding payments or constitute Dispute Redressal Committee (‘DRC’) for adjudication of the disputes invoking Clause 25(i) of General Conditions of Contract (‘GCC’). On 29.03.2022 Respondent convened a meeting of DRC, on receipt of reminder letter dated 21.02.2022 but the disputes remained unresolved and Petitioner sent notice invoking arbitration on 08.04.2022 calling upon the Chief Engineer to appoint a Sole Arbitrator. By letter dated 10.06.2022, Chief Engineer appointed a Sole Arbitrator, who rendered an arbitral award dated 25.10.2023, corrected by order dated 13.11.2023. Respondent challenged the award under Section 34 of 1996 Act in OMP(COMM) 111/2024 and vide judgment dated 29.04.2026, Court set aside the award on the ground that the appointment of the Arbitrator was unilateral, which led to the Petitioner sending fresh notice invoking arbitration on 14.05.2026 under Clause 25(ii) of GCC.
5. ARB.P. 1216/2026 is filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Section 11 of the 1996 Act for appointment of an Arbitrator. The disputes in this petition pertain to Letter of Acceptance dated 27.02.2016 in respect of work of “Construction of 200 additional class rooms in 08 school buildings under EO Zone 11 & 13 of DDE North West (Priority-1) (SH: C/o SPS type rooms, labs, MP halls i/c internal & external water supply, sanitary installation, development of site and Fire Fighting system etc. in SVK Ashok Vihar Phase-II, SVK Wazirpur J.J Colony, SV Wazirpur Village (Zone-II Package-A)”. Disputes having arisen, Petitioner wrote to the Chief Engineer of the Respondent vide letter dated 20.10.2021 to release the outstanding payments or constitute DRC for adjudication of the disputes invoking Clause 25 of GCC. On 28.03.2022 Respondent convened a meeting of DRC, on receipt of reminder letter dated 21.02.2022 but the disputes remained unresolved and Petitioner sent notice invoking arbitration on 08.04.2022 calling upon the Chief Engineer to appoint a Sole Arbitrator. By letter dated 22.04.2022, Chief Engineer appointed a Sole Arbitrator, who rendered an arbitral award on 14.10.2023. Respondent challenged the award under Section 34 of 1996 Act in OMP(COMM) 118/2024 and vide judgment dated 29.04.2026, Court set aside the award on the ground that the appointment of the Arbitrator was unilateral, which led to the Petitioner sending fresh notice invoking arbitration on 14.05.2026 under Clause 25(ii) of GCC.
6. Mr. Avinash Trivedi, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the earlier arbitration proceedings in both the petitions culminated in arbitral awards, however, both the awards were set aside by the Court on the ground that the appointments of the Arbitrators were unilateral, which led to the Petitioner invoking the arbitration agreement afresh and filing the present petitions. He submits that Clause 25 of GCC provides for appointment of the Arbitrator by the Chief Engineer, CPWD or Additional Direct
