Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 allows a party to approach the court to appoint an arbitrator when the agreed appointment procedure fails — for example, when the other side refuses to nominate its arbitrator, the two nominees cannot agree on a presiding arbitrator, or the parties cannot agree on a sole arbitrator.
For domestic arbitrations, the application goes to the High Court; for international commercial arbitrations, to the Supreme Court. The application is usually filed after the party has served a notice invoking arbitration and the time for the other side to respond has passed.
The court's examination at this stage is limited. Following amendments to the Act and the Supreme Court's decisions, the court primarily examines whether an arbitration agreement exists. Detailed questions about the merits, and many questions about arbitrability and limitation of the claims, are left to the tribunal to decide.
The court may appoint an arbitrator itself or direct an arbitral institution to do so. Once the tribunal is constituted, the court's role under Section 11 is complete; later applications, such as extension of mandate under Section 29A, go to the court defined in the Act rather than back to the court that made the appointment.
Institutional arbitration avoids much of this. When the clause names an institution, the institution's rules provide a fallback appointment mechanism, and parties rarely need to go to court at all.