The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") governs arbitration in India, providing a legal framework for the resolution of disputes through arbitration, which is an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism. Section 11 of the Act plays a critical role as it pertains to the appointment of arbitrators, a process that is central to the initiation of arbitration proceedings.

Overview of Section 11

Section 11 of the Act lays down the procedure for the appointment of arbitrators. It provides that when parties are unable to agree on the appointment of an arbitrator(s), they may seek the intervention of the Supreme Court or the High Court (depending on whether it is an international commercial arbitration or a domestic one) to appoint an arbitrator. This provision ensures that arbitration can proceed even when parties are in deadlock regarding the choice of arbitrators.

Key Sub-sections of Section 11:

1. Section 11(1): Provides that a person of any nationality may be an arbitrator, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.
2. Section 11(2): States that parties are free to agree on a procedure for appointing the arbitrator or arbitrators.
3. Section 11(4) & (5): If the parties fail to agree on the arbitrator within 30 days of receipt of a request by one party, the aggrieved party can approach the concerned High Court or Supreme Court for the appointment of an arbitrator.
4. Section 11(6): If the appointment procedure agreed upon by the parties fails, any party may request the Chief Justice or any person or institution designated by him to take the necessary measures to secure the appointment.
5. Section 11(7): The decision of the Chief Justice or the designated person or institution in appointing an arbitrator under this section is final.
6. Section 11(8): The appointing authority must consider the qualifications required of the arbitrator by the agreement of the parties and other considerations to secure the appointment of an independent and impartial arbitrator.

Landmark Judicial Pronouncements

Several landmark judgments have shaped the interpretation and application of Section 11. These cases provide clarity on the scope and procedure for the appointment of arbitrators.

1. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. & Anr. vs. Rani Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2002) 2 SCC 388:
• In this case, the Supreme Court clarified that the role of the Chief Justice under Section 11 is purely administrative, and the decision is not subject to judicial review. However, this view was later revised in subsequent cases.
2. SBP & Co. vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. & Anr. (2005) 8 SCC 618:
• This case marked a significant departure from the Konkan Railway judgment. The Supreme Court held that the Chief Justice's role under Section 11 is not merely administrative but also judicial. The court must apply its mind to the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and other relevant issues before appointing an arbitrator.
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 1 SCC 267:
• The court elaborated on the scope of Section 11, holding that the court has to decide preliminary issues like the existence and validity of an arbitration agreement, before appointing an arbitrator.
4. Duro Felguera, S.A. vs. Gangavaram Port Ltd. (2017) 9 SCC 729:
• The Supreme Court emphasized the “minimal judicial intervention” principle under Section 11. The court’s role is limited to ascertaining whether an arbitration agreement exists. The judgment streamlined the appointment process by reducing the court’s role to a mere “prima facie” examination of the arbitration agreement.
5. Mayavati Trading Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pradyuat Deb Burman (2019) 8 SCC 714:
• Reinforcing the principle laid down in Duro Felguera, the Supreme Court held that the power of the court under Section 11 is confined to ascertaining the existence of an arbitration agreement. The court should not delve into other issues like arbitrability, which are to be decided by the arbitrator.
6. Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Ors. vs. HSCC (India) Ltd. (2020) 20 SCC 760:
• In this case, the Supreme Court clarified that a person who has an interest in the outcome of a dispute cannot be an arbitrator. This judgment has profound implications for Section 11 as it impacts the appointment of arbitrators and reinforces the need for impartiality and independence.

Amendments and Their Impact

The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 and the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019 brought significant changes to Section 11:

• 2015 Amendment: The amendment introduced timelines for the disposal of applications under Section 11, mandating that the appointment should be made as expeditiously as possible, ideally within 60 days from the date of service of notice.
• 2019 Amendment: The amendment further streamlined the process by designating arbitral institutions (instead of courts) for the appointment of arbitrators. This aimed to reduce the burden on the judiciary and promote institutional arbitration in India.

Implications of Section 11

1. Judicial Intervention vs. Party Autonomy:
• Arbitration is fundamentally based on party autonomy, where parties are free to choose their arbitrators and decide the procedure for arbitration. However, Section 11 introduces a necessary judicial safeguard to ensure the process doesn't stagnate due to disagreements or deadlock over the appointment of arbitrators. The balance between minimal judicial intervention and the need to uphold fairness in the appointment process has been a constant theme in the judiciary's interpretation of this section.
2. Impacts on Arbitration Speed and Efficiency:
• One of the criticisms of arbitration in India has been the delay caused by court interventions, particularly in the appointment of arbitrators. While the amendments and recent judgments have attempted to streamline the process, the reliance on courts for appointing arbitrators can still slow down the arbitration process. The emphasis on reducing delays through institutional appointments is a step in the right direction, but its implementation remains crucial.
3. Institutional Arbitration:
• The 2019 amendment that encourages the use of arbitral institutions for appointing arbitrators signifies a major shift towards institutional arbitration in India. This move is aligned with international practices where institutions like the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) or the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) play a key role in the arbitration process. This shift can enhance the credibility and efficiency of arbitration in India, provided there is robust infrastructure and regulatory support for these institutions.
4. Ensuring Arbitrator Impartiality and Independence:
• The importance of having an impartial and independent arbitrator cannot be overstated. The Perkins Eastman judgment highlighted that a party cannot appoint an arbitrator unilaterally if it has an interest in the dispute's outcome. This principle is crucial in maintaining the integrity of the arbitration process. However, there are still concerns over the extent to which parties, particularly in contracts with significant power imbalances (e.g., government contracts), can influence the appointment process.

Challenges in the Application of Section 11

1. Backlog in Courts:
• Despite the efforts to expedite the appointment process, the backlog in Indian courts often leads to delays in deciding Section 11 applications. This issue can undermine the very purpose of arbitration, which is meant to be a faster alternative to litigation.
2. Inconsistency in Judicial Interpretations:
• While the Supreme Court has provided clarity on several aspects of Section 11, lower courts sometimes show inconsistency in applying these principles. This inconsistency can lead to uncertainty and unpredictability in the arbitration process.
3. Costs Associated with Judicial Intervention:
• Judicial intervention under Section 11 can also lead to increased costs, particularly when parties engage in prolonged legal battles over the appointment of arbitrators. These costs can be a deterrent to parties, especially in smaller disputes, from opting for arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism.

Future Prospects

1. Strengthening Arbitral Institutions:
• For the 2019 amendment to have its intended effect, there must be a concerted effort to strengthen arbitral institutions in India. This includes ensuring these institutions have the necessary expertise, resources, and autonomy to handle arbitrator appointments effectively.
2. Increased Training and Education:
• There is a need for increased training and education for both arbitrators and the judiciary to ensure a uniform application of arbitration law. This can help in reducing the delays and inconsistencies currently seen in the system.
3. Technology and Arbitration:
• The integration of technology into the arbitration process could further streamline Section 11 applications. For instance, online dispute resolution (ODR) platforms could provide quicker resolutions to appointment-related disputes, reducing the burden on courts.
4. Policy and Legislative Reforms:
• Continued policy and legislative reforms will be necessary to address the evolving challenges in arbitration. This includes revisiting Section 11 to potentially expand the role of arbitral institutions and reduce court involvement even further.

Conclusion

Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is a cornerstone provision that ensures the smooth initiation of arbitration proceedings by providing a mechanism for the appointment of arbitrators. The judiciary has played a pivotal role in interpreting and refining this provision to ensure fairness, impartiality, and efficiency in arbitration. The amendments to the Act reflect a shift towards promoting institutional arbitration, thereby aligning with global best practices. The evolution of Section 11 through judicial pronouncements and legislative amendments highlights the dynamic nature of arbitration law in India and its growing importance as a preferred mode of dispute resolution.

Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, serves as a critical mechanism to ensure the continuity and integrity of arbitration proceedings in India. While the section has evolved through judicial interpretations and legislative amendments, challenges remain in its application. The move towards institutional arbitration and the focus on reducing judicial intervention reflect a positive trend towards making India a more arbitration-friendly jurisdiction. However, for these changes to have a lasting impact, there needs to be a focus on strengthening institutions, reducing court backlog, and ensuring consistent application of the law. The future of arbitration in India will depend on how effectively these challenges are addressed and how the balance between party autonomy and judicial oversight is maintained.

Share this News