Bombay High Court

QUALITY EXPORT REP THR ITS PARTNER ANTONIO LUIS FELIX RODRIGUESversusSIDDHI VINAYAK AGRI PROCESSING PVT LTD REP THR ITS DIRECTOR

Disposal: Disposed of
Bench: VALMIKI MENEZES

Holding

Parties may mutually waive the requirement of a two‑member arbitral tribunal and consent to a sole arbitrator, and the court may appoint the arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act.

Summary

The applicant filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act seeking appointment of an arbitrator, which the respondent opposed on the ground that no arbitral dispute existed. The court held that such objections are not relevant to the question of appointment and can be raised before the arbitral tribunal. The arbitration clause required a two‑member tribunal, but both parties consented to waive that requirement and agreed to a sole arbitrator. The court accepted the parties' waiver and consent, and appointed Shri U. V. Bakre, a retired judge, as the sole arbitrator. Consequently, the application was allowed and the matter disposed.

Issues considered

Whether the court should entertain objections to the existence of an arbitral dispute at the stage of appointing an arbitrator under Section 11.
Whether parties can mutually waive an arbitration clause that mandates a two‑member tribunal and consent to a sole arbitrator.

Legislation cited

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 11

Subjects

Arbitration
Section 11
Arbitrator appointment
Waiver of arbitration clause
Sole arbitrator
Arbitral dispute

Judgment

                                   21 AAR 21 2025

     Sonam

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
 APPLN. FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR NO.21 OF 2025

QUALITY EXPORT REP THR ITS PARTNER
ANTONIO LUIS FELIX RODRIGUES                             ... APPLICANT
   Versus
SIDDHI VINAYAK AGRI PROCESSING PVT
LTD REP THR ITS DIRECTOR                                 ... RESPONDENT


Mr. Kaif Noorani, Advocate for the Applicant.

Mr. Samarth Shreedhar (through V.C.) with Mr. Varun Bhandankar,
Advocates for the Respondent.


                      CORAM:- VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
                      DATED :- 20th February, 2026

P.C.:


1.      This is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act for
the appointment of the Arbitrator. The application has been opposed
on several grounds, including the ground that there is no arbitral
dispute between the parties.


2.      On going through the reply, I note that the same is signed by the
Advocate, but there is no affidavit. Considering the objections, none of
these objections would be considered for the purpose of deciding
whether the Arbitrator is required to be appointed in the matter. All
these objections could be agitated before the Arbitral Tribunal.


                                      Page 1 of 2
                                   20th February, 2026
                                 21 AAR 21 2025




3.     Considering the Arbitration Clause (10), an Arbitral Tribunal
would have to be appointed. Clause (10) requires the Arbitral Tribunal
be constituted of two members. Both parties, on instructions, consent
to the appointment of the sole Arbitrator and waive their right for
appointment of another Arbitrator under the clause. They also
consented to the appointment of Shri U. V. Bakre, retired Judge of this
Court, as a sole Arbitrator to decide the dispute raised by them.


4.    For the reasons to follow, the application is allowed and stands
disposed of.



                                            VALMIKI MENEZES, J.




                                    Page 2 of 2
                                 20th February, 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…