In M/s GTM Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Fun Gateway Arena Pvt. Ltd. (Arbitration Application No. 56 of 2024, 2026:UHC:8196, decided on 11 September 2026), the Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court appointed a retired High Court judge as sole arbitrator in a dispute over unpaid licence fees under a licence agreement of 30 October 2023. The order is a clean illustration of how Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 operates when a contract requires joint nomination and one party simply refuses to engage.
The Dispute and the Deadlock
The applicant claimed unpaid licence fees under a licence agreement dated 30 October 2023. The agreement\'s Clause 13(f) routed disputes to "a sole arbitrator, who shall be a retired high court judge who is jointly nominated by the Parties." The applicant issued its notice invoking arbitration; the respondent, despite proper service, never replied. Joint nomination being impossible with only one participant, the applicant moved the High Court under Section 11.
The Order
Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta appointed Mr. Justice Mehboob Ali, a retired judge of the Allahabad High Court, as sole arbitrator. The Court noted the respondent\'s failure to respond to the arbitration notice despite service, the resulting impossibility of consensus on a name, and the completion of the statutory preliminaries — the proposed arbitrator\'s disclosure and consent — before making the appointment under Sections 11(6) and 11(8).
How Silence Plays Out Under Section 11
Three Practice Notes
The Larger Point
Arbitration clauses with joint or consensual appointment mechanisms are common in licence, franchise and development agreements. This order confirms the settled consequence of non-cooperation: the mechanism\'s failure is not the arbitration\'s failure. The court\'s appointment power exists precisely to prevent a recalcitrant party from converting a procedural courtesy — the joint choice of a neutral — into a veto over the arbitration itself.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation. The cited order should be read in full from the official record.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the arbitration clause require?
Clause 13(f) of the licence agreement required disputes to be resolved by a sole arbitrator who must be a retired High Court judge jointly nominated by the parties. Joint nomination presupposes participation by both sides — and the respondent never responded to the arbitration notice despite proper service.
What happens when a party ignores the Section 21 notice?
Non-response does not stall the arbitration. Where the agreed appointment procedure fails — including by one party's refusal to participate in a joint nomination — the other party may apply under Section 11(6), and the court makes the appointment the procedure could not produce.
Does the court respect the contractual qualifications of the arbitrator?
Yes. The clause required a retired High Court judge, and the Court appointed one — a retired judge of the Allahabad High Court — after obtaining the disclosures and consent contemplated by the Act, honouring the parties' stipulated qualification while supplying the missing consensus.
Which provisions govern such appointments?
Sections 11(6) and 11(8) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — the latter requiring the court to secure the proposed arbitrator's disclosure under Section 12(1) and to have due regard to the qualifications the agreement prescribes.