Synopsis

This judgment by the Delhi High Court allows a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator. The dispute arose from a construction contract between the petitioner (a private individual) and the respondent (India Tourism Development Corporation Limited, a Public Sector Undertaking). The arbitration clause in the contract gave the unilateral power to the respondent's Managing Director/Chief Engineer to appoint the arbitrator and further provided that if for any reason such appointment was not possible, the matter would not be referred to arbitration at all. Relying on the recent Supreme Court decision in Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited, the court held that such a clause violates Article 14 of the Constitution and Section 18 of the Arbitration Act. The unilateral appointment mechanism was severed as void, but the substantive agreement to arbitrate was upheld. The court appointed an independent arbitrator.

1. Heading for the judgment

Citation: Salil Kumar v. India Tourism Development Corporation Limited, ARB.P. 1871/2025, decided on 23.03.2026 (Delhi High Court)
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Avneesh Jhingan (Single Judge)
Core Law: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Sections 11, 12, 18); Constitutional Law (Article 14).

Delhi High Court appoints arbitrator despite unilateral appointment clause in PSU contract, holds that provision foreclosing arbitration if party fails to appoint is void under Article 14 and Section 18 of Arbitration Act.

2. Legal framework

This judgment applies the recent Supreme Court decision on the validity of unilateral appointment clauses in p

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.