The petitioner issued a notice to the respondent regarding the arbitration proceedings. This notice was duly served via speed post and email, yet the respondent failed to respond or appear in court when the matter was called. The petitioner’s counsel, Ms. Swati Surbhi, emphasized the absence of an arbitration agreement as per the criteria established in Section 7 of the 1996 Act, which requires a written agreement between the parties to submit disputes to arbitration.

The court scrutinized the correspondence between the parties, particularly two notices dated May 31 and June 7, 2023. The first notice suggested two potential arbitrators for appointment, while the second claimed that the absence of a response from the petitioner constituted a waiver of their right to appoint an arbitrator. However, the court found that there was no document indicating mutual consent to arbitration.

The court highlighted that the invoices referenced in the notices did not contain the petitioner’s signature or any indication of acceptance of arbitration terms. This lack of explicit consent led the court to conclude that no arbitration agreement existed.

Citing the judgment from NSK India Sales Company Pvt Ltd v Proactive Universal Trading Company Pvt Ltd, the court reinforced that a unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is impermissible. The case established that an arbitrator cannot be appointed unilaterally by one party without the other’s consent. The court noted that should one party seek an arbitrator's appointment and the other party remain unresponsive, the appropriate course of action is to approach the court for assistance under Section 11.

Given the absence of a valid arbitration agreement and the improper appointment of the arbitrator, the court terminated Mr. Singh’s mandate. It was made clear that even if an arbitration agreement had existed, the unilateral nature of the arbitrator’s appointment would render the proceedings invalid. The court emphasized that an arbitrator appointed in such a manner is legally incapable of serving in that role.

The ruling serves as a pivotal reminder about the necessity of mutual consent in arbitration agreements. The decision not only underscores the importance of a formal and agreed-upon arbitration process but also protects the rights of parties involved in potential disputes. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, affirming the termination of Mr. Vishwanath Pratap Singh's mandate as arbitrator due to the lack of a valid arbitration agreement.