The High Court has the power under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to appoint a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes where a valid arbitration agreement exists and the opposing party fails to respond to notice.

Headnote:The petitioner sought the appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, citing an Invoice based Financing Facility Agreement dated 26.09.2022. Despite due notice and service, the respondents failed to enter an appearance and were declared ex-parte. The court observed that a notice under Section 21 of the Act had been issued, and the agreement contained a clear arbitration clause. The central issue was whether the court should exercise its powers to appoint an arbitrator upon the failure of the parties to resolve disputes amicably. The court reasoned that in the presence of a valid arbitration agreement and in the absence of a response from the respondents, it is appropriate for the court to appoint an independent arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes. The court ordered the appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve the disputes and directed the arbitrator to fix fees in accordance with the schedules of the Act.

Table of Content
1. initiation of section 11 petition and establishing service on respondents. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. court discretion to appoint an arbitrator in the absence of opposing party. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)

O R D E R

This Arbitration Original Petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the differences and resolve the disputes between the petitioner and the respondents in accordance with the terms of the Invoice based Financing Facility Agreement dated 26.09.2022.

2. Heard Mr.M.Arunachalam, learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. Notice has been served on the respondents through substituted service by order of this Court dated 16.02.2026. The proof of service by way of paper publication has been filed and the names of the respondents have also been printed in the cause list. However, they have not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel. They were called absent and are set ex-parte.

4. A notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been issued by the petitioner on 06.10.2025. Inspite of the same, the respondents have not chosen to respond. From a reading of the Invoice based Financing Facility Agreement dated 26.09.2022 entered to between the petitioner and the respondents, it could be seen that the parties have agreed to resolve the disputes by appointing an Arbitrator.

5. In view of the Invoice based Financing Facility Agreement and considering the nature of claim, this Court deems it appropriate to appoint an Arbitrator. Accordingly, Mr.D.Saravanakumar, Advocate, (Mobile No.99402 02777) residing at OldNo.03, New No.11, Manigandan 3^rd Street, Oldwashermenpet, Chennai – 600 021, is appointed as Sole Arbitrator to enter upon the reference and resolve the disputes between the petitioner and the respondents.

6. The learned Sole Arbitrator is entitled to fix his fees as per the Schedule-IV of the Act. This Court further requests the learned Sole Arbitrator to endeavour to decide the dispute as expeditiously as possible.

7. Accordingly, this Arbitration Original Petition is ordered. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 47911

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASKumaresh Babu, JTVS Credit Services Limited – AppellantVersusMFC And Sons – RespondentArbitration Original Petition

The High Court has the power under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to appoint a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes where a valid arbitration agreement exists and the opposing party fails to respond to notice.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Kumaresh Babu, J
TVS Credit Services Limited – Appellant
Versus
MFC And Sons – Respondent
Arbitration Original Petition