In Park Project Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. v. Lombardi Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. (ARB.P. 2002/2026, decided 6 November 2026), Justice Om Prakash Shukla of the High Court of Delhi disposed of a Section 11 petition arising from an agreement of association for a tunnel road project, after the respondent’s counsel stated that its arbitrator had already been nominated under the arbitration clause. With both sides’ nominees in place, the court held nothing further survived and directed the two nominee arbitrators to appoint a presiding arbitrator within thirty days, as the agreement itself provides.
The case in one view
| Case | Park Project Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. v. Lombardi Engineering India Pvt. Ltd., ARB.P. 2002/2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | High Court of Delhi, Om Prakash Shukla J |
| Decided | 6 November 2026 |
| Provision | Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 |
| Outcome | Petition disposed of; nominee arbitrators to appoint the presiding arbitrator within 30 days |
The setting
The parties’ relationship arose from an agreement of association for the design, construction and commissioning of a major tunnel road project. When disputes surfaced, the petitioner moved the High Court under Section 11 seeking constitution of the tribunal. At the hearing, the respondent’s counsel informed the court that its arbitrator had already been nominated in terms of the agreement’s arbitration clause — a clause providing for the familiar two-nominees-plus-presiding structure.
From the order (para 5): with the nomination made, “nothing further survives to adjudicate in the matter” — the court’s only direction was that the nominees appoint the presiding arbitrator within thirty days.
The principle at work
Section 11 is a default-correcting power, not a first port of call. The scheme of the Act — and of most institutional and ad hoc clauses — is that the parties’ own machinery constitutes the tribunal: each side names its arbitrator, and the two nominees select the presiding member. The court steps in only where that machinery jams. The corollary, illustrated here, is that the machinery can unjam even after a petition is filed: a nomination made before the hearing leaves the court with nothing to appoint, and the petition serves, in substance, as the pressure that completed the clause’s operation.
Timelines that matter in tribunal constitution
| Step | Statutory/ordered time |
|---|---|
| Respondent’s nomination after request | 30 days under the Act’s default scheme |
| Presiding arbitrator by the two nominees | 30 days from their appointment under the default scheme; 30 days from the order in this case |
| If either step fails | Section 11 petition for court appointment |
Practical notes
The order is brief, but its message for infrastructure and construction disputes is practical: the fastest route to a working tribunal is usually the clause itself, operated punctually — with Section 11 held in reserve as the enforcement mechanism that keeps everyone honest.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the court not appoint an arbitrator itself?
Because the agreed machinery had begun to work. Section 11 exists for when a party fails to act under the arbitration clause. Once the respondent nominated its arbitrator in terms of the clause, the default the petition complained of stood cured, and the court's role reduced to ensuring the remaining step — selection of the presiding arbitrator by the two nominees — happens within a fixed time.
How is a three-member tribunal normally constituted?
Under the default scheme of Section 11(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, each party appoints one arbitrator and the two appointed arbitrators choose the third, who acts as the presiding arbitrator. Parties' clauses commonly mirror this, as the clause in this case did. Court intervention becomes necessary only when a party or the two nominees fail to act within the statutory period.
Does a late nomination defeat a Section 11 petition?
In this matter the court accepted the nomination and closed the petition, fixing a deadline for the remaining appointment. Whether a nomination made after the thirty-day statutory window forfeits the right is fact-dependent and was not the battleground here, since the petitioner did not press any objection beyond the nomination point recorded in the order.
What should a party do if the presiding appointment stalls?
If the two nominees fail to agree on the presiding arbitrator within the period fixed — here, thirty days from the order — the remedy is to return under Section 11 for the court to make that appointment. Keeping a clear record of correspondence between the nominees helps establish the failure if a further petition becomes necessary.