Synopsis

The petitioner (consultancy services provider) filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act seeking appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from a contract with the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (respondent). The arbitration clause provided for a three-member tribunal: one arbitrator to be nominated by the employer (respondent), one by the consultant (petitioner), and the third (presiding arbitrator) to be nominated by the Ministry. Both parties had already nominated their respective arbitrators. The court, noting that the parties were ad idem on referring the matter to arbitration and that no objections were raised to the nominated arbitrators, directed the two nominee arbitrators to nominate an umpire/presiding arbitrator within two weeks. The petition was disposed of without any further direction.

Court: High Court of Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar (Single Judge)

Date of Decision: 8th May, 2026

Citation: ARB.P. 341/2026 (unreported)

Core Law: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6) (appointment of arbitrator), Section 12(2) (disclosures by arbitrator)

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of delhi

Arb.p. 341/2026

M/s technical consultancy services (petitioner) vs. Ministry of road transport and highways (respondent)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice harish vaidyanathan shankar

Date of decision: 8th may, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

Arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 – section 11(6) (power of high court to appoint arbitrator when parties fail to agree on procedure or when the agreed procedure fails), section 12(2) (disclosure by arbitrator of any circumstances giving rise to justifiable doubts as to independence or impartiality)

Subject matter of the judgment:

Whether the Hi

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