Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. v Mehul Construction Co.

Facts

• Konkan Railway and Mehul Construction had a construction contract with an arbitration clause
• Dispute arose; one party applied to the Chief Justice under S.11(6) for appointment of arbitrator
• The question was whether the Chief Justice's power under S.11(6) is administrative (rubber-stamp) or judicial (requiring examination)

Issue

1. Whether the appointment of an arbitrator by the Chief Justice under S.11(6) is a judicial or administrative function.

Held

• The power under S.11(6) is a judicial function, not merely administrative.
• The Chief Justice must satisfy himself about the existence of a valid arbitration agreement before appointing.
• However, the scope of examination is limited (not a full trial on validity).
• Post-2015 Amendment: S.11(6A) further limited examination to "existence of arbitration agreement" only.

Ratio Decidendi

S.11(6) appointment power is judicial in nature. The court must at minimum verify that a valid arbitration agreement exists before appointing an arbitrator. This prevents abuse where parties seek arbitration without any agreement.