In Brief
A railway contractor challenged a High Court order dismissing its petition to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Although settled law provides that once such a petition is filed, the other party forfeits its unilateral appointment right, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal. The Court found that the appellant had inexcusably delayed pursuing the petition (filed October 2009), failed to serve the other party notice, later participated in arbitral proceedings that the other party constituted, and only prompted court intervention years after an ex-parte award (June 2013). The Court held that under such circumstances of laches and lack of diligence, the High Court properly declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction, leaving the appellant to challenge the award under Sections 34 or 37.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.